HIGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH AT SiLASPUR Slngle Bench : Hon'ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J Criminai AppeaS No.1243 of 20Q3 APPUCANT iln Jai!5 Faguram Marai S/o Bisahu Marai, Age 54 Years, Casts Saiga, R/o Viliage Pachrahj, P.S. Boria, Distt. Kabirdham (C.G.) u. RESPQNDENJ Versus State of Chhattisgarh. Shri Suryakant Mishra, oounse! forthe appeilant. Shri Sudhir Sajpai, Dsputy Go\4. Advocate for ths respondent/State. Crimina! Appeai Under Sectlon 374(2) of the Cr.P.C^ ORALJUDGMENT (Passed on 10-02-2009) This is appea! is dirscted agair«stthe judgment of convlction and order of sentence dated 07-10-2003 passed by Speciai Judae, Rajnandgaon in Specia! Case No.58/2003 whereby after holding the appeliant guiity for the jilega! cultivation of Cannabis (Ganja) convicted the appeiiant under Section 20(b)(i) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "the Acf) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.1 .OO.OOO/- in defauit of payment of fjne to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for 2 years. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that Station House Officer, Poiice Station Bodia received intimation from the informant that in the village Pachrahi, Poiice Station Bodia, accused is cultivating Cannabis piants near teak piantation and is residing in a hut in the field. The information was recorded vide P-14 and copy of the same was sent to the superior officer. Station House Officer, Bodla proceeded to the spot along with witnesses. Accused is present in the field. 105 Cannabis plants were found cultivated and the same were identified vide panchnama Ex. P-6, P-7 and P-8 were a!so recorded. Plants were taken out and weight of the same was found 26 Kgs. vide Ex. P-9. Spot map was prepared videP-10. 105 piants of 2 to 3 ft. iength were seized from the accused vide P-11. Dehati Nalishi was >^ t^ recorded as P-13. The appeliant/accused was arrested on the basis of Dehati Nalishi. FIR P-14 was recorded. The property was deposited in Malkhana vide P-15. Photograph ofthe piants in possession were taken vide P-16 to P-19. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. Seized plants were sent to State Forensic Science Laboratory; Raipur. The same was found as Cannabis piants vide report P-12. After completion of investigation. charge sheet was filed before the Special Judge, Rajnandgaon. 3. in order to prove the guiit of the accused, prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses. Statements ofthe accused recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminai Procedure, 1973 where accused denied the circumstances appearing against him and pieaded innocence and false implication is claimed. After affording the opportunity of hearing to the parties, Court beiow has convicted and sentenced the appeilant as aforesaid mentioned. 4. Counsel for the partjes are heard. Judament ImDuaned and record of Court beiow is perused. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he is not disputing the convlction but want to argue oniy cn the question of sentence. 6. On the other hand iearned counse! appearing for th^ State submits that the conviction is based on the iegal evidence and approDriate sentence has been awarded. 7. As regards the convlction of the appeliant is concerned, convictlon is based on the statement of PW/6 G.C. Pati, PW/2 Mohjtdas Sahu, PW/3 Dhanush, PW/4 Ganeshram PW/5 Shatruhan, PW/8 An/ind Awasthi and PW/IOBasantKumar Namdeo who have substantiaily deposed that appellant was found in possession of 105 Cannabis oiants which he has cultivated, the same were removed and seized. Statements are sufficient for inference that appeilant has cuitivated Cannabis plants and was found in possesslon of 105 piants of Cannabis without any propriety or authority. The convictlon of the appellant for the offence punishable under Sectlon 20 (a) (1) of the Act is sustainabie. 8. As regards the questlon of sentence Is concemed appeiiant has sentenced to undergo rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs.1,00,000/- i.e. maximum sentence awardabie for the offence punishable under Section 20(a) read with Section 20(b)(i) ofthe Act. 9. Learned counsel for the appeiiant submits that the appiicant is a viilager of Pachrahi and residing in a hut in the field. Thls is not a case of huge cultivation, no previous convictlon has been proved against the appeilant and the learned counsel for the appeliant further submits that maximum sentence awarded is disDrooortionate to the gravity ofthe offence committed by him. 10. Taking into consideration the number piants and that the appellant js not engaged in huge cuitivation of the Cannabis and further that he aooears to have cultlvated the Cannabis in smail area the sentence imposed upon the appeiiant is disproportlonate. Consequently, the appea! is partiy allowed. Conviction Is maintained. However, the appeliant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him i.e. detention period since 01-04-2003 ti!i today about 5 years 9 months and 10 days and pay fine of Rs.20.000/- in default of payment of fine additional rigorous smprisonment for one year. Sd/- T.P.Sharma Judge Kvr