./' ((& Appetlant HIGHGGURTOF<;HHATTlS6ARl-IATBlLASPUR SB: HON'Bt.ESH]RIR.N.CHANDRAKAR..J CriminalADBeal N0. 133 bf 2003 Antu Ram Yadav ResoOndent Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh. «' ^ POSTFORPRONOUNCEMENTOF JODGMBN^ Sd/- -^TW Sd/- R.N.Chandrakar Judge '-'~::' ii M. Appellant: HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR GriminalARpeal No.133 of 2003 ' Antu Ram Yadav, aged 23 years, S/o. Madan Singh, R/o. Kerlapal, PoliGe Station Sukma, Distt. Dantewada VersUs Respohclent; State of Chhattisgarh through PbliCe Station Bodhghat, Bastar, District Bastar. fi- ' A' ' (Criminal appeal u/S 374 (2) ofthe Cocje ofCriminal Procedure 1973) SB: Hon'ble Shri R.N. CHandrakar, J. Present: Ms. Sangita Mishra, counsel for the appeltant. Mr. Rakesh Jha, Dy. Govt. Advocate fortHe State. JUDGMENT (Detivered onthis2.%»tdayofOctober, 2009) 1. This Griminal Appeal under Section 374 (2) 6f the Code pf Criminal Procedure isdirectedagainStWeJudgmentofconvictipnancloKiecbf sentencedated 13-12-2002 passedbytheSpecial Court (Constituted under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985) Jagdalpur, Dist. Bastar, in Special Case No. 25 of 2002, whereby tearned Special Court has conyicted the appellantunder Sectipn 20 (B)(ii) (b) of the Nareotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (forshort,"theAct,1985") and sentenced-him to undergo R.l.fcr three years and to pay a fine of Rs.7000/-, in default 6f payment of fine to undergo further Rl for njne mbnths. 2. The case ofth&prosecution, in brief, isthat en 28-08-2002 Sublrispecfor Satya Kala Ramteke (PW/3) who was posted at Police Station Bodhghat ::—m-« <s" ii!ii":S I Nii reGeived infbrmatioh from informerthatthe appellant who was traveling in Bus bearing No. M.P. 23-J/0688 was having Ganja. On receiving thesaid information (Ex.P/13) and preparing panchnama (Ex/P/1) police party weht to Busstand where they metthe accused/appellant and after givinghim notice under Section 50 of the Act (Ex.P/2), they searched the accused, found 3.5 kg of Ganja from the bag pf the accused and seized the same. „ Thereafter, the Investigation Officer Satya Kala Ramteke (PW/3) lodged ,first<iinformation report (Ex.21) against the .-J.. appellant in Police Station, Bodhgtlat. 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the trial Court. The trial Court framed the Charge against the accused/appellant underSectiori 20 (B)(ii) (b)oftheAct, 1985 and thesamewas readover tohim. The appellant abjured the guilt andclaimed fortrial. 4. After recording the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the statement of the accused/appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., in which he denied the- circumstances appearing against him and plea8ed his innocenceand false implication. Thereafter.on evaluation of the evidenGe, the trial Court cdnvicted and sentenced the accused/appellantasmentioned inpara 1 of the judgment. 5. At the outset,leamed counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant has already suffered the sentence awarded to him by the trial Court and after undergoing the entire sentence, he has been released from jail, therefore, she does not want to press this appeal on merit. 6. Learned counsel appearjng for the respondent/State does not oppose the same. 7. I have heard learnedeounsel for the parties and perused the record. On perusal of the Teport dated 24-10-2009 received from the Jail Superintendent, CentralJail, Jagdalpyr, Dist. Bastar, itis evident that the aceused/appellant after undergoing the entire sentence awarded to him bythetnal Court, has beenreleased fromjail on 27-5-2006. 8. Having considered all the facts and circumstances of the case and in viewof the aforesaid report, 1 am of the considered opinion that no interference is called for in the judgment passed by the trial Court. .,.»-:,. ^ ^ ^ ^•1 . 9. In the result, the convictionand sentence awarded by the learned trial r Court is maintained and the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge Raju