~'1*-^(' IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH.) CR.APPEALNO.^g3 /2002 APPELLANT (IN JAIL) RESPONDENTS VERSUS Ramesh Kumar S/o Shri Devalal, aged about26 yrs. Occussion-Agriculture, R/o Matiyari, Thana Sipat, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Kanker Distt. Kanker (C.G.) MEMO OF CRIMINAL APPEAL U/S 374(2) CR.P.C. v / (Hon. Mr, JystE€»PrStinker Diwaker) Cnmlnai Appeal No. 683 of 2002 VERSUS Rsmesh Kumar State of Chhattisaarh Smt. Surya Kant Mishra, counsel for the appeilant, Shri Vaibhav Goverdhan, PL fc'r the State. Sl 374 f21 OFTHE 'll) The present appeal arisss out of the 20,05,2002 passed by Speaai for.the offence under Section 20 Psychotropjc Substance Act 198" undergo rigorous imprisonment for of Rs. 4,000, in defeult of payment o! rigorous imprisonment for nine month judgmentand oWer udge, Jagdalpuri ln accused/appeitant 1 Narcotic Drugs fnd sentendna hsmi to 2. Case of t acting upon a appeliant is cai prosecution in brief is that on 19.03.2Q02 secrete information to the effect that $he f":-s t Ijl Kanker and 10 Kg. Ganja was found in-Bhe i lities as per e: . | provjsions of law, jnvestigation was done and challanwas fi)!ed on 24.03.2002against the accused/appellant. ij i.1 3. Soas to hold the aecused/appejlant guilty, prosecutjpn has examined 05 ^vitnesses in support of its case. Statenl^nt ot the accused/appellant wasalso recorded under sectlon M3 'of the Code of Cnminai Procedure in which he denieo' Ithe i a^ liaai^ -z- • . :harge tevelled agajnst hSm and pieaded his innocence and 'aise implication in the case, 4. After hearl eard counsel for on record inclus larties the tria! Court has convicted 'd/appeliant as mentioned above. he parties and perused the material ;ment impugned. 6. Counsel for the appellant submits that he is not pressing thls appeat as far as it relates to cQnviction part of the impugned judgment and would confine his argument to the sentence part thereof only. According to him,. as ths appellant has already remained in jail for a period of two years and five months whereas the maximum sentence for this offence is three years, at the time of commisslon of offence the appeltant was a young man and there is no previous criminai record against him, no useful purpose would be served in further keeping hjm under detention and lt would be ln the interest of justice If the sentence imposed on him is reduced to the period aiready undergone by him. To this, counsei for the State has serious oblection. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal is; partty ajlowed. Conviction part of the impugned judgment is maintained. As the appellant has already completed the jaili sentence of two years and five months whereas the maxsmum sentence for this offence is three years, at the time of| commisslon of offence the appellant was a young man, hasi no previous criminal record is there against him and the| incident had taken piace aboyt nine years back, jall sentencei impQsed on him is reduced to the period already undergone by him, Sentence offine is however left undisturbed. .9'. ' Appea! thus partiy succeeds. p^n^Dwaker Judge 51 <- j6 u' i-i fUH^l bi!*t-' CT ^"i ' M