^[ MW.G:^ iwGKu^s IN THE HIGH COURTQF CHHATTISQARHATBILASPUR CRIMINAL APPEAL N0 <i^-l 2007 SB .1= r~ \ I- v Appellant (In/ '^"^•€^ ..-•-^^ o ^ :Hdliram@SantoshSahu 1^':_' •...'. •/. :^'..:; ::: ' S/o Kunwar Singh SaBu ^ ! 'Aged about 38 years, i Jh R/OVillageRys^y.Ghowki-F'anyatayae 'P.S- Kund^, Dist: Kawarcfl-ia (G|3;) |" Versus : ': ': ! :. .•;:::::^:: ':''"^ : State ofChhattisg^rh Through P.S- Kuriya Dist-Kabirdham^C.G) MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL D/S 374^ ^)' QF THE 'CODE lif::iiB}ill;Nlffl!! PROCEDURE. • • ' .^::-r:^":.^lii1:1^^^ Respondent <^i wewowWMeWM ^-RIBILASRUR Sfngle Bench ; Motfble AAP. 2u^i<»Pr'r^ CriiRindl ^pBieSI No; APPELLANT ,CInjaii) Ho!trdnii@SanfosKSahu Versus SWeof Shri AshQ^i>'Xi't,]|Gourise Shri Viv^<l,ShariBwi,?PaHet lant. 'er'yoftheSfccfe. CRIMiNAL^f'!^l-yiSUa6R^B@S6iN3Mtt^)^tME0^ "%;:.W[i@ ffitBJ .::^|.:.;l:.'r.';^..S.B6.^:'K'i'.^ (20.04;20i^ Presg^d^|eal^sesout|o^he;inrpugnedy orderdCTt'edsB20i^|!QliJpasSed^t?y^p^8i^ddge,Kabir^ Specjal Ca^No;^^^©&2SH|^irlg^hlec^ the offence punjshoible undep|5eGti0ri 20 (b)(ii) (B) rof *He Narcotjc Drugs ond^ Psyche'ft*ot>ic l^ubgtGnces Acfr and serrfenGingjhirntQunderg6|f|p?(^||np'|^^ yei^, cmtfpayfine^ 6^1^.10J^,m<tef.ffitHR to fuptheryndep^r'i^oreus^n^r^sonme^^ift^SixmolTt-hs^ 2. Case of thelproseeutton^m Bnsfl^ when A^. S^tis(RW-t3), /ts^st<^ Pandixtari.Police ^l^iori ^ receiyed secret4^oFm<^te ;fff<mi^ persohs have brought (5<^ jfij^i|jeepJ:^^ C&-IO^D^517^^'tK^;ace!jseci^psl|o^^Mn}||®^ssieR|jc^ ::.^.^.;'''Ha.:;^,:.l..;^lffitlUIS»«^ the s(Wne.; Afte^is^8ing^memSo|;^l^;'tgj|lTj|s|S|ij:|eRioi' QfjfiNer',1 :thescHd;:ofyieer :t^;cNe(li^^^eJ|!j:)Ot;':oi(|:{j^^ ac^used persbhs n(^^ l^tiBin^^ft^ ^l^f^} \' i l'-!^ i'-i- II ...•w^ /i. 't:^. 'y' m s Ashokdas. After completing the formaiities, 20 kg ©anja was seized from the posssssion of the accused/appellant. After investigation the challan was fiied against four other accused persons and they were prosecuted by the tria! Gourt. 3. So as to hold to accu^d/appeljants gu'lty, prosecution has examined as many os 14 witnesses in support of its co.se. Statement of the accused persons were aiso recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Crimina! Procedure in which he denied the charges leveiied against them and pteaded their innocencs and false implication in the case. 4. After hearin9 the part'ies the trial Court hos acquitted three co-accused persons but hce convicted and sentenced the present occused/appeilants as mentioned aboye. Hence this 5. Heard counsel for the part-ies and perused the material available on record including thejudgment impugned. 6. Counse! for the appeitant submits that he is not pressing this o^peal as far as it relates -to cohviction pcrt of the impugned judgment and would confine his argument to the sentence part thereof only. According to him, o.s the appe!lant is in jail since 18.10.2006 i.e. since tast about three years and six months, it would bs in the interest of justice if the sentence imposed on him is reduced to the period ojready undergone by him. He submits thst there is no past crimina! record against the accused/appettant and therefore, lenient v'ew moy be taken by this court'. He submits that fine amount ['ft J^-f ./.• ,-fi* -<•" ^'-^•'" has already been deposited by the accused/appelioint. To this, counsel for the State has no serious objection. 7. In view of above, the appeal is part-ly allowed. Conviction po.rt' of the impugned judgment is maintained. Appellant is reported to ho.ve remo.ined in jail for three years & six months, fine amount has already been deposited by him and thoit he has no past criminal record, therefore, his sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 8. Appeal thus partty succeeds. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge ^ &/-