^ &^' (s^ Singte Bench ^rirah-ia _IN_TJ-l_£_ii_IGH COURT OF 3UDICATURE AT 3ABALPUR M,P. Criminal Appsal NO. s^^ $'& / 2000 ^PPELUNT ..->.'f^3A IL) •^•' /^ ^ Hangai Ram S/o fflassuram aged about 35 years, R/o Bandhuguda, Distt, i\lavrangpur ORRISA. Vs. RESP.ONOENT The Stats of D.p.through P»S» Dhamtari, CRININAL APPEAL UNDE.R SECTION 374(2'j OF THE CODE OF _CRI1¥IIM_L PROCEOUR£» JIIGH_GOURT OF CHH^TTISG&AH t ^T BIliJitSPUR, CrImin^Aepeal No»2158/2000« Mangal Ram, S/o Massuram Vs, ^pellant The State of M<»P^ through P^S^ Dhamtari<i •.•^-. Respondent, ** * ^^ ^ J u d g m e n t ( 10-04-2001 ) By^ Hon»Shri RoS oGarg^J^ s The appellant being aggrieved by the judgmentdated 28^6 <» 2000 31 pass^d in Special Case No^79/99, by the learned Speclal Judge (NoD<,goS<»)^ Raipur^ cgnvlcting the appeliant £or an offence pixnishable under Sectlon 20(b) (l) read with section 8 of N.D«P«s«&et, sen" 'tencing h.iit^ to undergo R<»I-» for 2 years and pay fine-.of. &;.»2»000/^.. in defaulfc of payment o£ flne to underwgo further R*I» for 2 mor)ths, has filed this appealo • - . ' 2)o The prosecution case in brief is that on 3 •10<,99^ ttae a^st.Sub-Xnspector ' of police. station Dhamtarl^i namely Ashol< D^ivedi(P»W»7)^ at atooxit 3 • 30 a^ra. received a news from tne informer that in the luxury bus coming from Jagdalpur, two persons were importing ganja» 2 - ^Eter recording the report and complying with the mandatory prcwisions contained under Section 42 of the N oD ol? oS Act, the sald' Asst•Sub-Inspector .prooeeded to^ards the spoto .^shok D^iTedi(P»M»;7)- reached the spot and after seeing the on coming bus, he stopped the saKie., informed the drlver and conductor that they were to ta]^e search of the vehlcle^ Finding the present app&llant and another in suspicious activities, he served thom a nofcice under section 50 of the ^.ct and after obtaining their consent, toolc search of the air-bagso From the possession of t.he present-' appellant. 5kg. ganja was .recovered* The co.ntra- bands were weighed and thereafter,. tfae searcfa party along with the accused came bac]<: to the policestation^ First information report was registered and thereafter the informatlon was sent -fco the ironediate official superior xn accordance witfa Section 52/57 of tfae Xct> After receiving the positive report about the contra- bands ^ on conclusion of tbe Investigation the challan was filed^ As the acciased ab|i^r@a the guilt^ he was pat to trialo Mter recordlng the evidenee and JBjBariag the parties^ ttee learned trtal court convicted and sentenced tfoe aacused as referred t o abo^re^ 3 ) • Shrl MisMra a learned counsel for tfoe appellant submits tttat as the laandatory pro- visions contained under Section 42 and 50 of the ^ct ^rere not ca^plied with, the appellanl .—,.=-.^-<.in^.^—..t. i deserves to be acquitted^ 4)^ Contending contrary to the said submissxons, Shri P<»Bharat,learned Panel Lawyer submits that from the stateKients ''o£ the witnesses . axid the docu.ments ©xhibitedduring tbe course of the trial, it would clearly appear that imraediately after receipt of the Information fronz the infox^aer^ 'the said inforxaation was recorded in writing and -a copy of .t.he said information was sent to the superior Qfficer* He also submits thafc from the documenfcs xt would appear tha.t notice F^:»P/6 was.Qiven to. the accused .before his search waa ta}<eno AccQrding to him, the mandatory provi- ^^ sions were complied;and there is no scope for any interference in this appeal^ 5)»" ,- From the statements of P»^^7 tehok Dwivedi, it clearly appears that after receiving the information^ he recorded the same at Ex.P/4. It als-o appears from bis statainents that ix^ae-- diately after recording the infomiation, he sent a copy of the same to the iiinxaediate superior offieero From fais stat.ements^ it also appears " thafc before conductiag search of the presenfc appellant, nofcice ®K»P/6under SectioQ 50 of the Act was given to tfae accused and his consenfc iinder. Ex.^P/7 was takenc It also appears that before search ^as conducted^ P»W<.7 Asho^; IMivedi had offered hiKiself for his omi searcb, From his s.tatements^ it als-o appears tha-t two samplos of 100 grcis^ eacfa ^rere drawa on the apo^ v - 4 - contrabands and Bamples were iproperly packed and sealedo Prom his statements» it also appears that imBedlately after the accused ^as brought to the police stafcion^ first irxfon^ation report was registered and th.e ^ information was again sent to the higher officer^ 6)« &.£ter going through the statements of Jtehok Dwivedx (P^W^7), I ajn unable to hold that his'sta'tements suffer i-fith any defecti in fact on the material aspects^ he is suppori-ed by the other witnesses and-the documentary evidence•which is available on .the record<, - :&s the statements of PoW^-7 ^s.hol< DT^lvedi are reliable axid tnere is no reason to doubt the correctness of the said statements, no defect can be found with the findings,. recorded . -by the , iearned' trial -Court» Confirming the fxndings..:recordedby the learned trial court, I hold that the accused committed an offence punishable under Sectipn 20(b)(i) read with section 8 of tbe N •D.P»s.«W2t. 7)o M. this stage^ leamed couxisQl for the appellant submits.tbat the sentence aMard^d to the appellarxt. .deseryes to be reduced' to the period .already imdergone by the appelianto He siibmits that the appellant is in jail .since 4-10-99 and. by now, he has undergone 1^2 year and must have a Iso. earned • rdiission ' of more ithan two months ^ therefore, sentence be reduaed to the perjLOd already undergoneo '^ /Subbu/. 5 - . . . . 8 )<». Shri P».Bharat,learned-Panel Lawyer .submits tbat as the question-of: sentence 1s . .. withln the discretion of the Court^ he faas no comTaents to makec 9 5» Tateing into consideratlon the quantity of ^anja and the arg^xments of the learned counsel for the appellant, so also that there is no evidence on the record to shoyr that the appellant is a trader tn the cont.rabands or is a drug- pedlar• I consider present to be a fit case for reducing the jail sentaace to the period already undergone, 10 )o The appeal on the questioB of jait sentence is allowed^ The substabtive jail sentence is reduced to fctie period already undergone; but, however, the fi^Q_e_ araount and the default sentences are maintain^S^ Sd/- I R.S. Garg Judge 10-4-2001» ^•v^