HIGHCQURTOFCHHARUiSGARKA^^^ Sinale Bersch:- HoFs'bS^ShriJystlc^R.N.Chandrakar CrLminatA(?i?eaiJiQ.^4/20Q3 Appeiiarst Resppndent Budharu @ Anil; son of Dhaniram Udlya, aged about 27 years, Occupation-Driver, resident of Station Chowk Roop Nagar, Udiya Moha!!a, O.P. Kumhari, Thana Bhiiai, Tehsii and District-Durg (CG) Versus State of Chhattisgarh, through District Magistrate, Durg, District Durg (CG) IVfemorandum of Crimlnal Appeal under Section 374 (21 of Code of Crimina! Procedisre Present: Shri SurfaraJ Khan, counsei appears for the appeilant Shri Rakesh Jha, Dv. Government Advocate for the State. OralQrder (Passed on 16m ofJuiy, 2009) This appeal is directed against the order dated 06.02.2003 passed in N.D.P.S. case No.53/2001 bythe leamedSpecial Judge, N.D.P.S.Act, Durg (CG), whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 20-(b)(i) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short the 'Act') and sentenced to undergo R.l. for 106 days and to pay a fine of Rs.4,000/-, in defauit of paymenf offinetoundergo further R.l. for 1 year (2) Brief facts of the case are that on 25.10.2001, Y.S. Mishra RA/-2 who was posted at P.S. Berla as Station House Officer got information regarding the possession of contraband article Ganja with a person coming from Raipur. !t was informed that he is at Hotel Sinha. On receiving the said information, the S.H.O. reached the spot and made some enquiry. Ganja was seized from the appetlant's bag which was weighing 1.600 kgs. After due investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant. (3) Learned Additional Sessions Judge framed the charge under Section 20-(b)(i) ofthe Act. -^- (4) The statement of the accused/appeliant was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C in which he has denied the drcumstances appearing against him and pleaded his innocence and false imptication. After completion of statement ofthe accused/appeliant, the evidence ofthe witnesses was recorded. Thereafter, the case was closed for both the sides and the accused/appeltant has been convicted and sentenced as mentioned in para 1 ofthejudgment. (5) Learned counse! for the appellant submits that the appeltant has already served the sentence awarded to him by the triai Court and has also paid the fine amount. Therefore, he does not want to press this appeal on conviction and sentence. (6) Learned counsei appearing for the respondent/State does not oppose the same. (7) I have heard tearned counsel for the parties, perused the record and the impugned judgment of the triat Court. (8) The prosecution has examined as many as five witnesses namely Deendayai Kosle (PW-1), Y.S. Mishra (RA/-2), Radho Sinha (RA/-3), Heeraial Sahu (R/V-4) and B.R. Sinha (R/V-5). The trial Court has relied upon the evidence of Y.S. Mishra (R/V-2) and B.R. Sinha (R/V-5). Y.S. Mishra (PW-2), the Investigating Officer, has compteted alt the proceedings against the accused/appeilant and his statement is not contradicted by the defence. Though, Radho Sinha (RA/-3) and Heeratal Sahu (RAM) have turned hostile, they have admitted their signatures in the documents Ex. P-4, to 11, 16 and 18. Reiying upon the testimonies of the aforementioned witnesses, learned triai Court has convicted the accused/appellant (9) in view of the above, i am of the considered opinion that no interference is called for in the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court. (10) !n the result, convjction and sentence awarded bv the learned triat Court is maintained and the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge Pnya