HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BS.ASPUR APPELLANT: (InJail) Criminal Aooeal No.694 of2W Narayan, S/o Jhangal Ram Salam, aged about 35 years, R/o Dmkarpur, Police Station SUiava; Distt. Damtari (C.G.) Versus State of Chhattisgarh, Througli Station House Officer, Police Station SUiava, Distt. Dhaintari {Criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) of fhe Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973} RESPONDENT: Present: Mr. Y.C. Sharma, counsel for fhe appeUant. Mr. AkhU Mishra, Deputy Govt. Advocate for (he State/ respondent Sinssle Bench: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J ORAL JUDGMENT (8-7-2009) 1. By this appeal, the appellant has chaUenged legality & propriety of fhe judgiuent of conviction & order of sentence dated 26-8- 2006 passed by the Special Judge (NDPS), Raipiu-, m Special Criminal Case No.38/2005, whereby leamed Special Judge after holdlng the appeUant guilty for coiamission of ofience under Section 20 (a) (i) of fhe Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (for short the Acf), sentenced him to iindei^o R.I. for three years & pay Qne ofRs.15,000/-, ta default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for six inonfhs. 2. Judgment is chaUenged on the ground (hat without an iota of evidence fhe Court below has convicted & sentenced fhe appeUant and thereby comiaitted Ulegality. 3. During fhe course of argument, leamed counsel for the appeUant submits fhat fhe appellant has been released after serving fhe sentence. •f^S.w.&^-isssS9Sf /c^/ 4. I have heard leamed counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgment and record ofthe Court below. 5. Record of the Coiirt below reveals that on 20-10-2005 at about 9.30 a.m. (he appeUant was foiind ui possession of 33 pieces of cannabis plants in his kitchen garden, same were recovered and after foUowing the procedure prescribed imder fhe Act, charge sheet was filed against the appeUant. The prosecution has examined eleven witiiesses to prove the guUt of the appellant Statement offhe appellant was recorded under Section 313 offhe Cr.P.C. in whlch he derued the circumstances appearing against him, pleaded innocence & false unplicatioil. 6. After affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, Court below has convicted & sentenced the appellant in fhe aforesaid manner. 7. Leamed counsel for the appeUant submits that alfhough fhe appeUant has been released after servtng sentence, the prosecution has not proved the case beyond atl reasonable doubts. 8. In order to connect the accused with the crime m question, the prosecution has examined Siiresh (PW-1), Devnath (PW-2), Khamhan Singh (PW-3), Ramkrishna Sahu (PW-4), C.L. Kosre (PW-5), Panchuram Kashi (PW-6), R.K. Sori (PW-7>, Dhanesh Sahu (PW-8) & M.D. Tiwari (PW-10), who have substantiaUy supported the case ofthe prosecution. 9. After appreciatuig the evidence available on record, the Coi.irt below has convicted & sentenced fhe appellant as aforenjentioned. Conviction & sentences imposed upon the appeUant are based on cUnching and legal evidence. I do not find any UlegaUty in the judgment impugned. 10. Consequenfly, fhe appeal is dismissed. Soma Sd/. ^Sbarn,, Judge