1 w w‘ I N THE HIuL—i COURT OF l‘v‘IADHYA PHA5£~1 DE AT JABAPUB L z riminal Aigeal‘ No. 6 3w/95 C p £ HPPI. LLANY Basdr &on so arnswari B/ 0 Dri m p3 .iunbika‘ur, disrict “sarguja MP nhiha i n of Pma Sonar, age 45 year d s, p t - / ~‘V’ersus‘ ape of madhjd Pxcxuea a 1 / ahApPmL U/‘s J74’k2 Cr.P..\ ) C w \TN 512m midi CJLWCIIU fiéia‘Puui‘xiT NLJ US 2O }3 Of‘ the Narcot‘ c mugs and rsycnotraonlc stances ct 1.985 ub A 'K.Io six manths and fine of is.5,000/ in ‘O'Lfault of [paym‘g‘rt of Ilne urtar ti L tor J lx mamas V\ NW WNW“ ”WM“, 1 _ 4 ‘ 1§ DH ‘\ \ lB)I ‘\ 1&1'. a a / .fr . jv th C w . W RIGE QQURT GF CEH£TTIS§ARH AT EELASP'IR $3 : HONBLE MR. JUSIQCL'; ?R£iEFE}{E3§§3§§?¥. ’ ’T ’‘_ CR.A.E\§Q. 8Q3i i995 AwELLgw? Bmshw i, VETS §1S RE$P€§NEEE§T Smts o M. P. f Shri Dsaggak' Jain, ccungax {0‘ fhs 2")“e1arlt. l w ‘ Shri Parxkaj Shrivagtam, P a f0“ ‘ha S “+6 1 €R.A= U§§ER $E§T§Q§3Q¢4 {QB GF €3R.P.C. ; ‘ wmmyiwz‘ . $33.95*20m; This appeai is dimcmd againsi’ the j'sidgmgat dated 224.1995 passad by the S€conu Spscia; Judge, Ambikagzur if; 8331, Case N0. 531’9’3 convict'mg {mi appdlalit for the oifenca under Section 20(B) of the NDPS Act anti scntsncmg him to undergo rigorous impn'sonment for six months and to pay fme of Rs. 5,000 in dsfault of fine to fur$er undasrgo Iigorous / I mpnsonmeat . . for s1x . months. / 2 3916f facfs of fhe case are flaw on L; 9 ”2 unori receLvmg secmt mlormahon rald was conducLed m me grocery shot) of the accuscd/appeilamt ami a small plaonc baa contammg oOO grms. of ganla was found. Afar givmg notit‘e and after obmpleting the formalities: FIR was registeyed, investigation was done and chailan was filed on 16,7. 3 3. In order to eeta‘r) 1sh the gum of the aecueed the g prosecunoa has examlued iive w1messes $tatement of r‘he accusea] appel‘iant was aiso recorded under Section 313 of the pieaded his innocence and faise implication in the case. Cr.P.C. in which he denied the charges levelied agairrst him and ‘ i 4. After hearing counsel for the ”aar’mes the trial Court has convrmed aed sentenced the accused/appeda. t f0“ thr offence i as menaoned above Hence th1s appear a. Hsani counse} for the parties ami psmsed the maierja"? avaiiabia on record includmg the impugnai judgnmlt. é. Cantenz'iog of cammc‘l for ma apygklam is fhaf. he is not pressing {bis app€al as far as it relates to convica'on part 9f fhe impugned judgment and would carifme his argument to the sentence part thereof anly. According to him, as the amaellant is aged about 60 years, his physical and financiai condition is pathetic, he is suffering from various ailments, that the incident iswsaid to have taken place in the year 1992 ie. about 18 years back, The appellaxxt has no previous criminal record, has already remained in jail for about 17 days, no useful purpose would be serverl in again sending him to jail and it would be in the interest ofjustice if the sentence imposecl on him is reduced to the period already undergone by him 7. On the other hand, counsel for the State has no serious objection. 8. The fact that the incident had taken olace in the Vear 1992, the fact that the appellant is aged about 60 years and. his physical and financial condition appears to be pathetic, he has already remained in jail for about 17 clays, the apneal is nartly allowed. Conviction nart of the impugned judgment is maintained. Appellant is reported to have remained in jail for a period of 17 days and therefore his sentence is’éreduced to the period already undergone by him. However, in lieu thereof: the tine of Rs. 53000 imposed by the trial Court is enhanced to Rs. 6,000. Appeai thus, partly succeeds. Appellant has already denosited the tine amount of Rs. 5.000 however, he is directed to deposit the additional amount of Rs. 1,000 Within a period of three months from theidfate of receipt of copy of this order and if this amount is not deposited Within the said period the appeilant shail undergo the sentence of imprisonment for two months. .3 ’ Sd/- Pritinker Diwakel' Judge