,^y^, |^£3?^| \^-':"7 '^^^^ \^'^' \(^ .APPELLANT (In JaiJ) HI^H COURT QF CHH.4Tra.S©4RH.4T BILASPUR Crimjnai Aweai No. 314_ofluQ9 S Shrinu Naidu S/o Appo! Naidu, aged about 40-42 years, Occupation AAotor Mechanic, R/o Purana Market, In front of Navrang Taikies/ V/ishakhapattnam (A.P.) ^ESPONDENT Vfersus Stote .of C.B. Through Po'ice Station Kanker, Distt-. Uttar Bastar (€.&.) (APPEAL UNDER SECTEON 374 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL P^OCEDURE, 1973) Present^' • . .' . .' • .. . '• .• .'• Ms Sangeeta AAishra, counse! for the appejlant,' ^..••' •:.:. ..: Mr. Sanjeev X- Agrawai, Panei iawyer for the State/respondent* (SB: Hon<b!e. Mr. T.P. Sharma. J.) OR.4L JUDeMENT (Passsd on 8th Juiy, 2009) This isjail appea! fiSed after 1308 days of its I'w.itotion. On due consideration, I..A.NO.OI is aibwed., Deiay in filjng the oppea! is hereby condoned. AJso heard on admission. The appea! is admitted for fina! hearlng. The present appelbnt is in custody since 2812005 ,and appea! fjied on behalf of other co-occused namely N.V.Ramanna has been djsmissed .by a' coordinate Bench of thjs -Court vjde Judgment dated 2J..0..2007, in CriminoJ Appec! No,.689 of 2005. With .the consent of learned coun.sel appearing fo-r the porties, the matter is heard fina!ly and disposed of. IIN— ^ 1 Thjs crimina! oppea! is directed against the Judgment of conyjction and order of ssntsncs dstsd 1° July, 2005 passsd in Specjsl Case No.5/2005 whereby the jeQrned Specia! Judge under N.DP.S- Act, Bastar at Jagdalpur has convicted the appelbnt herein and other co-accused under .Section 20 (B) (ii) (c) of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (In short lthe Acf) o.nd sentenced the appe!!ant to undergo RJ, for 10 yea.rs and to pay a fine of Rs<!,00,000/-, in defautt of payment of fine to undergo additional RJ. for 5 years- The Judgrpent of conviction and order of sentence is chdJenged on the ground that without there being any materioi avai!ab!e on record, the Court be.bw has conyicted and sentenced tiie appe!!ant as aforementioned and thereby committed an j!!e§oiity. Brie.f facts of the case are that on 2ZI.2005 the appe!!ant a!ong with other co-accused nomely N.V.RamQnna was found in possesslon of 250 kg. cannabis (<5anja) in a white'ambassador car bearSng rtegistrotjon number AAV/7844. After •folfowing the procedure prescribed, search and seizyre were made and charge sheet was fiied. .After offording an opporlunity of hearing, tearned SpecioJ Judge hos convicted and sentenced the appelte.nt and other co-accuse-d as aforementioned. Co-accused N^V.Ramanna has preferred on appea! against Ifie said Judgment. Judgment of conviction of co-accused N,V.Ramonna was majntoined but Jaj! sentence imposed on defauit of payment of fine ^^s-modified vide order dated 2.10.2007 passed in Crimina! Appea! No.689 of 2005. Learned counse! appearing for the eppe! io.nt subniits that taking into considerQtion the Judgment dated 2AQ.2007 pojssed in CrimJnai Appea! No.689 of'2005 fi!ed on behaif of co-accused, she is on!y djsputing the. sentence. On the other hond/judgment jmpugned is supported on behoJf of the respondent. I have perused the Judgment jmpugned and record of the Court below. ' »T»^/'<S ^— B/- Statement adduced on behaif of the prosecution is' sufficient for drawing infere-nce that the appe! io.nt ond other co-accused was found In possession of 250 kg. cannabis (Sanjo) and on the basi^ of evidence adduced on behaif of the prosecutjon, the Court bebw has rightly convicted the oppe!!ant for the offence punishabie under SBction 20 (B) (ii) (c) of the Act. As regards the question of sentence is concerned, taklng into consideration the quantity of cannabis (Sanja), the. Court beiow has rightly sentenced the appellant but whiie passing the Judgment on payment of default the Court be.low has not considered the case in prospectlve manner- Consequentiy^ the Jai! sentence imposed on default of payment requires modification. The appeai is partly allowed. Conviction under ^ction 20 (B) (§i) (c) of the. Act and sentence RJ. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- is hereby maintained, 'However^ the Jall sentence imposed on defauit of payment of flne is modjfjed and it is directed that-in defayit of payment of fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, the appe-liant shall yndergo additiond RJ. for 1 year instead of RJ. for 5 years. T.P. Sharma Judge n v