;i3a':ewB-Eate: iiiiii—s" laitfae ffis& ©Mirftatf M»a^a, Sftetesh^. ^ W^a^w, (Ea%.A»®ii>'!<^^ S2-~/96. ' . ' Eassc:f/s^ ©touKtlu^W.vses^, tet Rt-ut.1 :,,,: ' ; •: ^. .' .. ' .—'.-^-..'/^._ -.: /••" ^ ' 59 y®a»ii»,-^»"vtIUt».A^t®kBi,'P*'Siu' •> '• BfttaaqBif, Mett*. Btlaayur *•••«./ *»••• JM*»»U«afe & t.e «CH»?».ttoMi(I» tla.e W.s^.xS.eS IBtKtKbrate^ .BHj.aairera',1 :'»..»,«r. - ••.,• •- •.•* Be«2»ta«fe ®a"a«l.aafd.AM»e^ U/S; 3T4 <itf_^t»_W,?•©..: agaia^t: the ®WwC»M»a;.&•»atwwe:»aB«*a Iffi. tXe S»8ri;«a3WE»,_M3.»«]WU;...B/*1*3»96^ -—-t§~9T)5-—- ~ inSpaelialL ^ae 'Hi»»t.5t^5»-"' :E r» •a.', !„(.« i ,^1 .S xy,-.- HIOH CCTJKTOF CHH»,mSG&RHATBILAM'IXR (Hoa. t. JusUce PtltiakCT Dlwalier) CRIMIM&I, APPEAL N0. S52 of 1996 APPBLLANT RESPONDEMT VERSUS Raiadhan State of Matfliva Pradesh. Shri S.K.Guha counsel for appeBant Shri Pankaj Shriffastava PL for Bespondent/State. CRIMWAL APPEAL iniDBRSBCTtON 374 (2t OF THB GODB OP CRI»HMfAl..PROCB;DURE. JUDGMBBT (19.04^2010) This appeal is directed agaiast tbejudgaieat and OBler dated 1.3.96 passed by Additioaal Scssions Judge, Balaspur, in Speciat Casc No. 159/1995 Gonvfcfmg the accused/appellant fcr the offence puaishable under Scction 20(b)(l) oftheNarcoticsDrugs& Psychotropic Substaaces Act aud sentencing hian to undei^o rigorous imprteoiuneat fortwoyearsaad p^ flae ofRs. 5,000, in defeiilt ofpayaieat of fne to further undeigo impnsonincnt for six inonths. w' I" 1 2. Briief &cts of the case ace tfaafon 4.6.95, upon receiving secret iuformation to fhe eflfect tliat the accused/appeUattt m iavolved in seUing ganja, poVce party has seized 8 kgs. of ganja fi?oin the accuscd appellaatwhich was kept by him iiear fhe caaal. ~~» 3. vS^ as to hold Che accused/appellant guilty, piosecution bas exaaaiaed two witaesses ia support of its case. Statement of the accused/appeUaat was also recorded uader scction 313 of (he Code of &-munal Ptpcedure in wliich he deiued the chatge levelled .s^aiust hiia' aad pfeaded his inaocence aad fa]se anplicafioa in the csse. .'/': ' ',' . . ^ 4. 'After hiearmg fhe parties the trial Court has convicted aad f&e accused/appellant as aeationed above. .^ ^-*'^3?' 5. Hcanl counsel for thfi parties aad perused thc material available on record includnqi fhe judgnieat impugaed. 6. Counsel for the appeBant subauts that he is oot pressiag fhis appeal as &r as it aelates to coaviction part oftfac impugned judgment and would^confine his aiynnent to-flie sentence part thereof oaly. Acconlu^ to him, ^ thc appeBaat has ah-eady remaiaed ia jail for fiftecn montfas, fhat tfac incidcat had tabca place about 15 ycars back aad'that by aow &e appeUant te agcd about 55 years, no useful purpose would be served in sendiag 'him tojailand it would be iatheintetest ofjusticeiffhe jajl sentaace imposed oa Tihn is reduced to ttie period atready imdeigoae by him. 7. On fhe other haad counsel for tlic xcspondent/Statc supports fhe judgment iiapugBed. 8. In the facts and ciBsiunstances of the case and teeepiug ia view fhe fact •fbat the appdlant has atoeady xeniaiBed ia jail for fiftecn inonfhs, tfae incident had taten place about 15 years back and ttiatbynow the appeBaat is ageQ. about55ycars,Ae ^ipealis pardy allowed. Conviction part of flie impiigncd judgnaent is xnamtauied. Jail scntence imposed on the accused/appellaut 1s reduced to fhe pcriod already axidcrgoite by Iiim. However, ttie sentence offine ofRs. SOOO iiaposed by ffie trial CoiKt is «ahaaced to thatofRs. 10,000 wliich woirid be dcposited iathetnalCourt wlthin a period otfbxee laontfas fiuxa today. Failure to do so shall tead to resto»atioHofthesentienceimposedbythetrfaICoiirt. 9. Appealfh^is partty suoceeds. -. / Sd'- Pritinker Diwaker Judge