\ \ ^ .^•^f &t."q»€-ff^nc^ ^h THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR, fC.G.) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO^LC 3'QF 2008 APPELLANT (In Jail) RESPONDENT Ku. Mandhi Sunita , aged about 26 years, D/0 Mukka Koytir, Caste- Adiwasi, Occupation- Agriculture, R/0 Village- Nilondri Nagar, Police Station- Orekel, District - Malkangiri (Orissa) VE RS U S State of Chhattisgarh: through District Magistrate, Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) MEMORANDUM OF CRIMINAL APPEAL U/S. 374(2} OF Cr.P.C. 1974 1 HI@H COURT 'OF .•CHHATTISBARH AT Bench : Hcn'bl®Mr. Justlc®PritlnRer CrimJnsi-Appeal No. 302 of ^PPELLANI Ku. Mandhi Sunita . Versys State of Chhatti-sgcrh Smt. Indis"a Tripath'i, counsesi for the Qppeliant. Shri Praveen Das, Dy. Qf\ for the State/respondent.', • 374 (2) OF THE OF J_ ^s- _E_N_T (08.03.201.1)-. ' .",- •/ - • •..>..-: This appeai is directed .Gg.alnst theim'pi.3ginea^ydgrnent..-of- convitttjon and order of sentence .dff3'€<i';'l:34t.?^©^'"pGSS€dby Speciai Judge, Dhamtari in .Speclai CriminGi Case No. .37/2007 convicting the'accused/appellant for the offence punishable under Section 20 (b)(ii5(B) of the Narcotic ,-Drugs A Psychotropic .Substances Act, 1985 (for short "N.&PS.Act") and sentencing her to undergo rigorous.. imprisonment for Seven years with fineof Rs. 70,003/~, in. default'of payrnent Qf.flne to further undergo sirnple imprisonrnent for one yeor.' ; ,^-.,. 2. Brief facts of the case ar-e that on 24.2.2007 secret information WGS received by Sub Irsspector D.P. Sharma (PVV" 11) to the effecit.that.four persons including.two ladies wes"®... seiiinq the contraband i.e. SanJar\eG:c oid bus stand Dhamt.ari. This information was reduced to.writing vide Ex.P-29 and thereafter, the pojice authorities proceeded for raid. .After finding the accused/appeijant, she was servsd with notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act vide Ex.P-2 on which the appeiiant gave her consent vide Ex.P-22 and then the ~T ....^s^ '^."'^ l- ^' &) contraband was found in her possession carried in airbag. Thereafter, weighment of the contraband item was done vide Ex. P-7, according to which ganja so selzed came to be 10 kgs. A 200 Qms. Seizure Panchnama was made and other forrnaiities were compieted. After receiving the report frorn the F.S.L, challan was filed on 30.4.2007 under Section 20 (b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act against the accused/Qppeilant. 3. So as to hoid the accused/appejjant guiity, prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses in support of its case. Statement of the accused/appe!iant was also recorded under Sectlon 313 of the Code of Crimind Procedure in which she denied the charges levelied against her and pieaded her innocence and false impiication in the case. 4. After hearlng the parties the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused/oppeilant for the offence as mentloned above. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material avaiiabje on record including the Judgment impugned. 6. Counse! for the appeliant submits that she is not pressina this appeal as far as it relates to the conviction part of the Impugned Judgment and wouid have a iimited prayer with respect to the sentence part thereof oniy. She submlts that the appeilant is in Jai! since 24.2.2007 i.e. last four years and fourteen days and that she does not have any criminoi ontecedent, she woujd be obiiged if he is reieased immediately. She submits that it wouid be in the interest of Justice if the sentence imposed on her is reduced to the period dready undergone by her. She dso submits that the fine arnount may ;..f^,l ^// •^y ^ also be reduced to a reasonabie amount as the appe.!!ant is very poo'r iady. To this, counsei for the stote has objection. 7. According!y, the conviction part of the judgment impugned is maintained. However, keeping in view the fact that the appe!lant is in jail since 24.2.2007 i.e. about 4 years and 14 days and she does not have any criminai antecedents, the appeSlant is a young girl, aged about 26 years, therefore her ssntence is reduced to the period aiready undergone by her. Further, her sentence of fine as imposed by the trial Court is reduced to Rs. 30,000/~ from that of Rs.50,000/-. This order wouid operate oniy if .the appeiiant deposits the fine amount as directed by this Court. On such amount being deposited, the appeilQnt shajj be releossd without any dejay if not required In any other case, 8. Appea! thus partly succeeds. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge