THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.953 OF 2004 DATED 10th NOVEMBER, 2010. BETWEEN : E.Srinivasulu ..Appellant-Accused and The State of A.P. ..Respondent THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.953 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Appeal arises out of judgment dated 07.04.2004 rendered in Sessions Case No.259 of 2001 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Anantapur, wherein the learned Judge convicted the appellant under Section 235 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month, for the offence punishable under Section 22 (a) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘the Act’). The allegations against the appellant-accused are that on 31.05.1995 at about 3.30 p.m. during the inspection by the Inspector, Task Force, and other staff members, the accused was found in possession of toddy mixed with diazepam meant for sale. The Inspector drawn the sample of toddy for analysis under cover of panchanama by mediators after following the procedure prescribed under the Act. Later, the sample was forwarded to the analyst, who after analysis found the sample of toddy to be mixed with diazepam and free from chloral hydrate. When a charge under Section 22 of the Act has been framed, read over and explained to the appellant-accused, he pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. In order to prove the allegations levelled against the accused, the Prosecution examined PWs 1 to 4 on its behalf and marked Exs.P.1 to P.5 and MOs 1 and 2. In his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C also accused denied the incriminating evidence read over to him, which is available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. After hearing both sides and perusing the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Sessions Judge passed the impugned judgment. Heard. After arguing for sometime, the learned counsel for the appellant by not pressing the main prayer confined his arguments to the extent of imposition of sentence and requested the Court to show some indulgence on the appellant. In view of the said submission, this Court is of the view that merits of the Prosecution case and impugned judgment need not be adjudicated. Section 22 of the Act reads as under: Punishment for contravention in relation to psychotropic substances: Whoever, in contravention of any provision of this Act or any rule or order made or condition of licence granted thereunder, manufactures, possesses, sells, purchases, transports, imports inter-State, exports inter-State or uses any psychotropic substance shall be punishable,- (a) where the contravention involves small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both; (b) where the contravention involves quantity lesser than commercial quantity but greater than small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees; (c) where the contravention involves commercial quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to twenty years, and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees: PROVIDED that the court may, for reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a fine exceeding two lakh rupees. Admittedly, the offence took place in the year 1995 and for all these years the accused suffered humiliation and also stigma in the society. It is represented that the appellant is the sole breadwinner of his family and has to look after the welfare his family members. In these circumstances and also in view of the nature of offence committed by the accused, this Court is inclined to show some lenience against him. Accordingly, the conviction imposed by the trial Court is hereby confirmed. However, considering the circumstances of the case, the sentence imposed on the appellant is hereby modified to that of the period already undergone by him. The remaining portion of the impugned judgment shall stand unchanged. With above modification, the Criminal Appeal is disposed of. ________________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Dated : 10.11.2010 sur