Siftisa3 ag SlngIeBench IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Cr.A. N0. of 2009 APPELLANT In Jail VERSUS RESPONDENT . ^v..'^"""^'^ '^^^""\^ ^^^^.^^^' ^'^ ,tA Mantri Das S/o Kishun Das, aged about 35 years, R/o Village- Sarekel, P.S.-Tumgaon, Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) StateofChhattisgarh Through- District Magistrate Mahasamund, Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) ^sa-" ^' APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE ^isa^ I, •-..iS^'^ y lh-^ t..1;'-'' '^£s€^~~ """"s?y ,.wsSSffSSS! !a§i;ISNSi8^ HI6H COURT OF CHHATHSeARH AT BILASPUft Smgle Bench ; Hon'bie Mr. Justice Pritinker Dwakar APPELL^NT RESPONDENT Mantri Dds, s/o Kishun Dcis Versus State of/ChhQttisgarh AAr. Sunil Sahu, counsei for the appeiiant. Mr. Neeraj ^Aehta, PL for the State/res^ ;R SECHON 374 (2) OF THE CO&E OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE JU&6MENT (05.04.2011) This oppeai is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 01.10.2009 passed by Speciai Judge, Mahasamund in Sessions Tria! No. 05/2009 convicting the accused/appellant for the offence punishable under Section 20 (b)(.ii5(B) of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act (for short "NDPS .Act") and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight years and pay fine. of Rs.20,000, Fn default of payment of fine to further undergo r'igorous imprisonment for two years. Facts of the case in brief are. that upon receiving secreat information on 22.3.2003, police party headed by Sub Inspector Mayo. -Sharmo. (PW-6) ma.de a ro.id in the house of th.e accused/appellant and upon search 1 kg. and 60 gms oi Sanj'a was found m the said house. After compie+ing aii the formalities, F.1.R. (Ex.P-19) was registered against ths accused/appeliant and his wife Durga Boi under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Act, After investigo.tion, chailan was filed on 5-5.2003 against the accused/appellant and his wife. as KiSsaS ^s.fsyafsS^SW afl 3. During trial the accused/appeliant had absconded and, th.erefore, the trial Judge had separated the triai of the wife of the accused/appeilcuit nameiy Durga Sai, however, she was acquitted vide judgment and order dated 5.4.2008 in Speciai Ccse No. 1/2006 and after arresting the accused/appelloint on 27.3.2009 the trial Court proceeded against him. 4. In order to establish the guilt of the accused/appellant, the prosecution has excniined as many as 7 witnesses in support' of its case. Statement of the dccused/appe!lcnt was a!so recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the chorge levelled against him and pieaded his innocence and false implication in the case. 5. After hearing the parties the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused/appe!lant for the offence os mentioned above. 6. Heard counse! for the parties ond perused the material availabteon record including thejudgment impugned. 7, Counse! for the appeilant submits that he is not pressing this appeal o.s far as it relats to the conyiction part of the impugned Judgment and would have a iimited prayer with respect to the sentence part' thereof only. He submits that in fact a very smatl quantity of Ganja was found from the house of the accused/appeltant but to show the offence more grave, quantity of the sosme has been sh.own beyond 1 kilogrom so that the appellant may be sentenced for more years. He submits that the the appeiiant has already remained in jai! for about two years and six months, for the same offence wife of the accused/appeilant has already been tried and has been acquitted, incident took place about seven years back and he does @ .a^'SsJBl not have any criminai antecedent, he would be obliged if the appellant is released immedicri'ely. He submits that it wouid be in the interest of justice if the sentence imposed on him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. To this, counsel for the state has no objection. In view of above, the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction part- of the impugned judgment is maintained. AppeHant is reported to have remained in jail for about.two years and six months, for the some offence wife of the accused/appeltcuit has already been acquitted by the trial cour!', incident took place about seven years back, he doss not have any criminal cmtecedents, and therefor®,in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, his sentence of eight years is reduced to th.at of three year-s rigorous imprisonment. However, his sentence of fine os imposed by the trial Court is maintained as it is. As the cccused/appeliant is report'ed to be in Jail, he be set free after completion of sentence imposed on him by this courl'. This order shal! not operate if, the appellcuit fails to deposit the fine amount. 9. Appeal thus part'iy succeeds. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge