THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL APPEAL No.247 of 2011 JUDGMENT: This Criminal appeal is preferred against the judgment, dated 30.11.2010, passed by the Special Judge for Trial of NDPS Cases (I Additional Sessions Judge), Warangal, in S.C.No.302 of 2004. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: On 8.8.2004 at 2.00 p.m., one B. Kishan, S.I. of police, Parkal (P.W.1) along with P. Venkanna, P.C.1994 (L.W.2), S. Ashok Kumar, P.C.2577 (P.W.3) and N. Pommaiah PC 1613 of P.S. Parkal (L.W.4) and C.R.P.F. Force, proceeded to Parkal Proper Town for patrolling. At about 3.00 p.m., when they reached near Kakatiya Theatre, Parkal, they found a person under suspicious circumstances, possessing a gunny bag. On seeing the police, he tried to escape. Then, the police party chased and apprehended him along with the gunny bag. Immediately, P.W.2 called two mediators viz., Kasagoni Jampaiah and Tharala Sadanandam and in their presence, he questioned the accused whether he wanted any Gazetted Officer under Section 50 of NDPS Act. On the request of the accused, P.W.2 sent a requisition to Dr. A. Sanjeevaiah, the Civil Assistant Surgeon (P.W.4), Government Civil Hospital, Parkal, to conduct confession and seizure panchanama in ganja case. Immediately, P.W.4 came and examined the accused before the mediators and the accused confessed that he had purchased dry ganja from the nearby villages at the rate of Rs.100/- per kg., to sell the same at 800/- per kg at Nagpur and as usual, on 6.8.2004, he purchased 12 kgs of dry ganja, packed in a gunny bag and was waiting near Kakatiya Threatre, for an auto, whereupon, P.W.2 along with the mediators apprehended him and produced him before P.W.4. Thereafter, P.W.2 collected samples from ganja for the purpose of chemical analysis and report and later seized gunny bag and the accused were brought to P.S. and handed over to the S.H.O. of P.S. Parkal at 4.45 p.m., and submitted a report, basing on which, a case in Cr.No.141 of 2004 for the offence under Section 8(c ) r/w 20 of NDPS Act was registered. After completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed and the same was numbered as S.C.No.302 of 2004. Before the trial Court, in order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 7 and got Exs.P1 to P12 marked. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the appellant- accused. On appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the appellant-accused is found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 8(c) r/w 20 (b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act, and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo S.I. for a period of two months. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed. Learned counsel for the appellant-accused fairly conceded that this is not a fit case for interference, but, however, requested this Court to take a lenient view having regard to the fact that the appellant is in jail for a period of 225 days. In the light of the said submission, this Court looked into the record. From the material on record, it appears that the appellant was in jail from 9.8.2004 to 15.10.2004 and from 30.6.2008 to 5.9.2008 and on 15.11.2010, he was taken into custody and since then, he has been in jail. From the above, it is clear that the appellant-accused had already undergone substantive sentence of more than seven months. In these circumstances, this Court is of the view that a lenient view can be taken and the sentence of imprisonment can be reduced. In the result, the sentence of imprisonment to undergo R.I. for a period of one year and sentence to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to suffer S.I. for a period of two months as imposed by the learned Special Judge for Trial of NDPS cases (1st Additional Sessions Judge), Warangal against the petitioner-accused for the offence under Section 8 (c ) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act are modified to that of the period, which the petitioner-accused has already undergone. The appellant shall be set at liberty if he is no longer required in any other crime or case. With the above modification, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. _________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 1st March, 2011 Nn THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL APPEAL No.247 of 2011 1.3.2011