HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADHYA PRADESH, JABAPLUR S.B.: HON. SHRI S.C.SINHO, J. Criminal Revision No.102/2011 Jamna Prasad VERSES The State of Madhya Pradesh -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri B.J. Chaurasiya, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Sameer Chile, G.A. for the respondent/State. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- O R D E R 11/02/2011 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the judgment dated 11.01.2011 passed by IV Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur in Criminal Appeal No.17/2010 arising out of judgment dated 12.01.2010 passed by C.J.M., Chhatarpur in Criminal Case No.223/2004, whereby the applicant has been convicted under Section 20(b)(ii)(A) of the N.D.P.S. Act and sentenced to R.I. for 3 months with fine of Rs.500/-, in default S.I. for 1 month. 2. Prosecution case in short is that on 09.02.2004 at about 18:30 hours PW-3 Krishn Kumar Tiwari Police Constable of Police Station Kotwali, Chhatarpur received information from informant that in Amanganj two persons are selling ganja. On receiving this information Ex.P-17 Panchnama was prepared and intimation was sent to C.S.P. Krishn Kumar Tiwari along with PW-4 Head Constable Munnilal, PW-7 Jitendra Singh Constable, PW-8 Mohd. Yakub, Assistant Sub Inspector proceeded to the spot and found applicant there. PW-3 Krishn Kumar Tiwari prepared Ex.P-3 search Panchnama. Police party gave their search and after seeking permission of the applicant took his search. The applicant was having 200 gram ganja. Sample of the ganja was taken in three parts. In due course a charge sheet was filed before the C.J.M. concerned. Applicant abjured the guilt and submitted that he has been falsely implicated as accused. He also examined Paramlal Anuragi as DW-1 who stated that applicant has been falsely implicated. 3. The courts below after appreciation of evidence held the guilt of the applicant for the offences proved beyond reasonable doubt. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has raised only one point before this Court. The only contention is that applicant has been falsely implicated and defence witness Paramlal Anuragi is not believed. 5. PW-3 Krishn Kumar Tiwari, PW-4 Munnilal, PW-8 Mohd. Yakub A.S.I. have categorically deposed that 200 grams ganja was seized from the applicant. Aforesaid seized sample of ganja was sent to F.S.L. Sagar and as per Ex.P-25 report it was certified that the aforesaid articles were ganja. However, independent witness PW-1 Munna @ Saleem and PW-2 Avrar did not support the prosecution case and declared hostile. Admittedly their signatures in the seizure memo, the evidence of police officers is dependable and reliable. They have no reason to falsely implicate the applicant. Nothing could be brought on record so as to suggest that applicant is falsely implicated for any extraneous consideration. 6. It is well settled that revisional jurisdiction cannot embark upon re-appreciation of evidence unless the finding of fact is, on the face of it, illegal or perverse. In absence of any circumstance suggesting any motive of false implication, the courts below have not committed any illegality while placing reliance on the aforesaid witnesses. 2 7. The trial Court as well as appellate Court have recorded finding of recovery of 200 gram ganja from the applicant. Both the courts below have given the cogent reasons in support of their conclusion. The finding of above fact is abundantly borne out of the evidence and material available on record. There is no illegality and perversity in the concurrent finding of two courts below regarding conviction and sentence under Section 20(b)(ii)(A) of the N.D.P.S. Act. The finding of conviction is maintained. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that meager quantity of ganja has been recovered from him and he is in jail 11.01.2011 till today. The applicant is a first offender. In these circumstances, the jail sentence of applicant can be reduced to the period already undergone in the ends of justice. 9. Resultantly, this revision is partly allowed. The conviction of the applicant under Section 20(b)(ii)(A) of the N.D.P.S. Act is hereby affirmed looking to the nature of offence, however the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone enhancing the fine amount from Rs.500/- to Rs.2000/-. Let the balance fined amount be deposited in the trial Court within a period of 45 days from today, failing which he shall undergo further R.I. for 1 month. 10. With the aforesaid modification in the sentence, this criminal revision stands disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for information and compliance. (S.C. Sinho) Judge psm 3