Il/Vf/IIHIIQQQIIIIIIQ Hm ] CFO 062 88 IN THGOURT ENHIH,G OF JUITE DCAUR k3 JABALPUR / RIMINAL APPEAL N0$\%$ OF 199 §inqfé Rr Qfrimina CRIMINAL ApSiE‘ALvwDER “smitten 3M v12»)? ‘CR.P.c.1973’.‘: A?ELLT: highesh S/o Rameshwarmg‘ed aboutf56 years. (IN JAIL)I ... g ‘ /o Dhamtari.Polic‘e \Statiaa - Dhamta'ri Di$tt. Dhamtari (M.P..) XX VERSUS“ State of Madhya Pradesh f RSODE EPNNT: C 9 q PAN /’V .. CRIMINAL A9PEAL NO. 3193 of 1999 State o Madhya Pradesh. f JUDGMEN ost for‘ %-l-2001 P 2 Sd/— Fakhruddin \ Judge T CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 3193 OF. 1999 Mahesh .v. State of Madhya Pradesh Shri R.S. Patcl, Advocate.. Appellant by Respondent] State Sushn Shanmla Smgha1, Panel Lawyer JUDGMENT Heard learned eounsel for the parties. 2. Brjcny stated—the facts of the case axe that on’31-12—1997, the Station House O$cer, Police Stau'on Bastar'Ieceived the informaiion that a person is traveling in a busof M.P.S.R.T.C. illegally taking Ganja with him. He sent the information to his superior o$cers. Thereaner he along with independent panch witnesses went to the spot and got the bus stopped and took permission of search of the bus nom the Conductor and the Dnver of the bus The accused was Sitting m Seat No 27 of the bus keepmg a bag The Stanon House O$cer gave the accused a notice under Section 50 of the N.D.P.S.. Act. The accused \gave consent of his search and anchnama Ex.P-4. was prepaiedJ‘hey found 10.00 Kg. Ganja in his bag. Out of the total Ganja,_ two samples of 30 gram each were taken and the?rest of the Ganja was sealed Thereaiter cnme was registered and accused was arrested The samples were sent to chemical exammatlon and 1t was found to be Ganja v1de report Ex P—18 After due investigation, challan was nled ’ ‘ > ‘ \ -2- ’3.‘ The accused abjumd his guilt and contcnded that he has been falsely implicated. 4. The trial Court a&er considering the enthe matter, has found the appellant/accused guilty fork committing the oh‘ence under Section 20(B)(1) read Wlth Secu'on 8 of the Namou'c Drugs and Psychotmpic Substances Act and sentenced him to sudcr thme yeais R.I. and hnd of Rs. 5,000/— and in default to further undergo R.I. for six months. 5. The nial Court in para 5 and 6 of its judgnent has considered the evidence of P.W 8-T.S.Thakur, A.SLI. In his statement he deposed about the manner in which he xeceived the information and went to the spot and prepared certain Panchanamas. Those Panchanamas have been proved. In paxa 8, evidence of P.W. 5—Smt. Sushila Tekam, S.I. has been considered. She also stated that on receiving information she prepared Ex.P—11 and the accused was arrested. P.W. 1 Kamikar, who is ran independent witness, has supported the prosecuh'on version. In para 10, evidence of P.W.7 Janardan Pandey, Conductor and P.W.3 Kama] Singh Mahant have beenconsidered. They have also supported the prosecution version. P.W. 2-Mulchand has also stated that the seized article was brought to the Police, Station Where it was weighed and found 10.00 Kg. Two samples wele * ‘I "separated and the rest was sealed and Ex. P-11 was prepared. ; a. ‘5 \ s. i 4w CW .3 - 6 %e haw also cons1dered the enure facts and cucumstances of the’case and gone tlujough the mconi of the case and found that the J trial Court has rightly held the accused guilty for the oEence. 7. The learned counsel appealing for the appellant is also not in a posiu'on to assail the findings arn'ved at by the learned trial Judge. 8. Therefore, the couviciiOn of the‘ appellant under section 20(B)(1) mad with Section 8 of Namoh‘c Drugs and Psychotropic , Substances Act is maintained. 9. Heaid the learned counsel for the appellant on theiquestion of l i i _ sentence. lCounsel submits that the appellant has been sentenced for ‘ 3 years R.I. and hne of Rs. 5,000/- and in default to further undergo for six months R.l. He has already undergone sentence of 2 V2 yeam. He prays that the sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone. 10. Having considexed the facts and cimumstances of the case, the sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period l ‘ aheady undergone. So far as the ‘hne part of the sentence is concerned, it is maintained. 1 1. Appeal is partly allowed. Sdi- U ‘ c? -c . J ' \ Fakhrudtgg \ w f ‘i’ / / JUDGE 3 42 2001 _