APPELLANT: CInJail) HI6H COURT OF CHHATTtSSARH. BILASPUR Crimmal <4poeal No. 585 of 2006 Chingraj ©Johar, S/o Kdlicharan \5antnami, aged about 42 yr-s., ft/o Aooretipara, Baghat Singh Ward, Bhatapani, Police Station Bhatopara, Oistt. Raipur (C.©.) RE5PONDENT: Versus State of Chhottisgarh, Through SHO, P.S. 6.R.P., Bilaspur, bistt. Biloepur (C.6.) 1 {Criminal appeal under Section 374''62) of the Code of Crimina! Ppocedure, 673} t Present; Mr. Rakesh Sahu,counselfor the appellant. Mr. Sameer Behar, Panei Lawyer for the Stdte/respondent. Sjngle Bench: Hon'bte Mr. T.P. Sharino. J OfiAL JUD6MENT (4-2-2009) 1. This cppeal is directed against the judgment of conviction & order of sentence dated 7-8-2006 passed by the Special Judge (authorized under the Nar-cotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985), Bibspur, in Special Case. No.23/2004, whereby learned Special Judgeafter holding the accused/appellant guilty for commission of offence under Section 20 (b) (ii) (B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substcmces Act, 1985 (for short 'the lAct'), sentenced him to undergo R.I. for four years <S pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further under9o R.I. fbrsix months. 2. Judgment is challenged on.the ground thatftrthout any clinching & reliable eyidence relating to possession of •t+ie contraband article ©anja,the Court beiow has conyicted &. sentenced the appellant as aforementioned. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief.is that on 9-6-2004 dtabout 9 p.m. R.L Badoi (PW-6) receiyed infor-Riation from the informant that one person is !Z;.Si:'s^£S!gSwii. -aras^iUs!-~iSasi!»s's'a''''l**'*tt"" 'jauuDiu pmsajofo 344. ui +UD||addD 344. paoua+uss y pa+oiAuos SOL[ (iAO|aq +jno3 'ssi+jod 31)4. 04. 6uiJDaL| j.o A^.iuni.joddo Suipjoj.j.o ja+.j.y '9 •uiii.i 4.suiD6o p3joda4d uasq SDI^ ssoa asjtt.). puo uoi+sanb ui 6oq 3i|+ ^.o di^sja^Ao 344. +noqo 36p^|Mou>| GUIAD^ +ou S! at) 'ua|04.s ajam ^auoui ip +a>|3od sit) ptro tUiL) uo pauiuiiuos uaaq SDL) 6ui+s>|3od >|3id f.o sausj.j.o uoi+Dj.5 Aomiiog Dp|ij^ +D 'ui(U4. at.|4. ui Sui||3Ao^+ EDm st| +04^. aauaj.ap 344. ua>|D4. OS|D SDI| pasnosD at|j^ •uoi+DOjldtJU) SSJDJ. y sausoouui papi>s|d 'iuitj +suio6D 6uui>addo ssauD+stUng^is 344. pauap SL| i|3!L|m ui "3'd"-13 34-t ^° £T£uo!+3aS ^spun p»p>io3au som pssnooD 3t)+ j.o +uatua4.n|.g •g •ssssau+im xis so XUDUI so psuituoxs SDL| uoi+nsssoud 31.14. 'pasrisoo aLj+ j.o 4.|in6 sijj. sAojd o+ uap^p uj •jndsD]ig '+ay SdQN 3H+ -opun s6pnf inosds 3t)4. auo^aq pa|!j. SOM +aaL|s a6jDi|3 'uoi+oSi+saAui j.o uoi+aiduios ja+j.y 'fr 'LZ-d"x3 3P!A oru»Sf punoj. ajsM auios ai|+ puo 9-(j"><3 apiA UOI+OUIUIDXS 103101343 joj. +uas SJSM ?s|dtUi>5 •psujasuo:) +jno^ atj4. y jaoij.j.o jousdns 844. o+ pa+Diui+ui SDM sjnzias puo 'yd'-s3 a4+ J-° 191 uoi+aas japun pap^oosj s.tSM SSSSSU+IM ai|4. j.o s+u3*ua+u+S 'iuoojsjo+g 341. ui +ds>j som X+uadojd aiy. '•^2-d"s<3 "tl'U p3pjo3aj 34 puo A+uado^d 244. y pasnsoo ai|+ II+IM 6uo|o uoi+o+g S3j|0(j ai|4. o+ >j3Dq psujn+sj jasij.j.o Gui+ofij+saAui aiy^ "p3|oas SDM ^adojd 344. puo ua>|D+s^s'n ssiduiDS -gg-d^ apiA ps+gaujo SDWI-pasnoao ai^ '22-d'x3 spjA pazias SOM aoi+otsj 'I2-d'><3 spiA paziss SDM auios 'ofung -s6^ g aq ip' 04. punoj. SDM +i puo 02-d"><3 SP!A P34^!a4?'6T~d"x3 SP!A psuiuioxa X||»3!sXL|d SDM 3UIOS 'DfuDg) 3|3j4.JD pUDqDJ+UpS Suiuio+uoa Soq uo|/(u auo ^.o uoisssssod ui punoj. SDM pasnasD 31.J+ puo apoiu SOM ipjoas 8'(-d')<3 3P!A pasnaso 34+ uiojj. +U3SU03 6ui>|D+ iia+^y "ZI-d'x3 aP!A pa-iDdsjd SDM +UIMJDM \jpjvas f.0 4.usuia^n30^d-uou ^oj.lunpuo^otuaui'puo 0114 04. uaAiS SDM si-d"x3 a;i+ou 'UIIM+ ai|4. ui 4.uasajd SDM +UD||addo s^j^ •+ods ai|+ joj. papaaso^d \ (9-Md) !:>PD8 'TS Pul° W-d"x3 8P!A s^ssu+im'atj4. 6ui||03 joj. pajodsjd OS|D SOM OUlaUt UOI+DUIJOj.UJ "IT-d'Xg apjA jssij.j.o jousdns SL|+ o+ +uas SDM auios 344. j.o Xdos puo OI-d'><3 3P!A t>UIDUL|3UD(j )? DLj^UIOUZOg ui papjosaj SOM aiuos 'UIBJ+ |030| Dqjo^l-jndiog ui vfviog ap^^o puoqDj+uoo Sw^odswu\. j J..4. Mi 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment impugned as also the record of the trial Court. 8. Leorned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has not commifted any offence, cbnscious possessionof the contraband article has not been proved a9ainst the appellant and the appellant was in custody from 10-6-2004 to 29-6-2004 about 19 days before the judgment and from 7-8-2006 till today» Learned counsel further-submits 1+iat the period already undergone by the appellant is sufficient for commission of offence under Section 20 (b) (ii) (B) of the Act relating to possessionof 3 '(A • y.gs. of the contraband article 0anja. 9. On the other hand,. learned counsal appearing on behalf of the State/ respondent suppor1%d the impugned judgment and submitted that the appellant is a habitual offender and he was in possession of 3 Kgs. of tiie contraband article Sanja. IQ.In order to appreciate the contentions of the parties and establish comptici-fy of theoppellont in the crime in question, Ihaveexamined the evidence of thewitnessesadducedon behalf of the prosecution. 11. R.L. Bada (PW-6), Sub Inspector, has categQrically stated in his evidence thaton 9-6-2004 he received information from the informant and after recordin9 Roznamcha & Panchnama, he proceeded for the platform olong with the Police personnel; after issuing notice to the <iccused,search was made and the accused/appellant wos found in possession of nylon bag containing 3 |<9S. of Sanja, same'was examined, weighed & seized, and after taking the samples the contraband articte ©anjawas sealed. The accused was arrested, the F.I.ft. was lodged ond the property was kept in the storeroom. Samples were sent for chemical analysis and finally the same was found to be Sanja. This wi't^ess hcis proved the documents from Exs.P-1 to P-7, P-10; P-ll <& P-15 to P-29. 12. Jhadiram Banjare (PW-1), AssistcntSub Inspector, has corroborated the evidence of R.L. Bada (PW-6). Santosh Singh 0?W-5) has not supported -7—-—T—~'—T'^fl ^.^^S^'"^^^^'^ •• • 1:-:* Stima the case of the prosecution but he has specjfically admitted his signatures on the documents Exs.P-14 to P-23. 13. Jhadiram Banjare (PW-1) & R.L. Bada (PW-6) have been cross-examined by the defence in detail, but^Elefence has not been able to elicit anything in their- cross-examination to discredit their testimony. They are police vuitnesses, but they hwe followed the procedure prescribed. Nothing has been suggested to show thnt they were having inimiail terms with the accused or otherwise interested a9ainst the accused. Their evidence inspire confidence and the same is trustworthy. M 14. After appreciating the evidence'dvailable on record, the Court below has convicted the appellant for commission of offence under Section 20 (b) (ii) (B) of the Act. Conviction of the oppellant is sustainable under law. 15. As re9ards the question of sentence, according to the judgment impugned, the appellant has been previously convicted in the years 1999 &2001, and again he has committed the present offence in the year 2004. Presently he is in custody from 7-8-2006 about 2 years 5 months & 17 days. Taking into consideration the quantity of contraband article fianja, sentence of the appellant requiressome modification. 16. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction of the oppellant is maintained, however, his sentence is reduced from R.I. for 4 years & fine of Rs-5,OQO/- to R.I. for 2 years 5 months & 17 days i.e. the period already undergone by him & fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine he shali undergo additional R.I. for six months. If the appellant has deposited the fine and is not required in any other case, he be released forthwith. .i' Sd/- TRSharmi Judge: