3am,m,%mgt Wm 1n 200 mm (W) WW#®€?W mwm %ai1%wsné¥r HIGI-I COURT OF CHEATTISGARH AT BILA$PUR CRIMENAL APPE&L NO. 646 of 2007 Agrawal, counsel for thé appdlant. Agxawal, Parlel Lawyer for Mr. 3ameev Kumar Mr. V Ravindra Stats} resyondént. O Dhirendm Mishm, J This criminal app a1 is djrécted against thvs jmigment of conviction a11d ordvar 0f s ntenrxa dated 30¢ Jufm 2007 passmi in S.T.N0, 141‘07 whersby 1 P$ychotr0pic Substancc$ Aci) Dhamtari (CG) haa‘. convicted thc km 1] of the N.D.P.S. Act and semiencmi years, pay a £5116 0f Rs. 10,000,! and i1; default thereof t0 undagm additirmal S1 for four month$v .7 / tht: ‘RAL JUDGMEKT (’2 “1 Dmxmber 2007) 116d Special Judg€ (Narcotic Drugs mm appdlant undter Semion him t0 undmao RI for 6 0 i Al’PELLANT ) 1 i ?asax1t @ Ledga J (in Jail) i i bf o. Jhuru Ram Yadav, z ‘ ‘ Aged abmlt 41 years, X K I Gecupation ~ Labour i Rf 0 Bedlmrapathra { i 1 RS. $ihawa‘ iL l i DIQH‘ Dhamtari ((‘G_) L E Egfsas 1 i RESEQEDEK!‘ i , , 3tate: of Chhattiggarh I i t Through RS. Si‘nawa } 1 i l Uist't. DhamtariJL’CG‘; Prewnt: Wm mmw Wmm mm WW égaifcmm Learxmd cauns el for messing this appeal again that the appdlant has alrcz inmosad on him and Siam i The £1116 amount, hc is ufn paym€nt of fine amount. mom thzm two years and tv the interest of iustice, the be sentenced to the period z From perusal 0f the available on recm‘d, it is appellaut was that he W2 plants mid 19 prohibited kitchen garden. The trial C yelyjng upon the deposith {PW»9}‘ which is pasitivel: incienendent Witness Ran appellant under Section 2C him to underga RI for tWO tiefault of payment, to undt From perusal of the the appellant is in jail sine comnleted mare than two the apwellallt Submits that he is net st convictien. It is further submitted 11y undergone jail sentence of two yeal‘e 3e is a poor person and not able to pay lergoing the jail sentence in default of The aepellant has. already unclergooe m months. ofjajl sentmce, therefore, 1'11 sentence may be modifled and he may Lli‘eady undergene by him. impugned juclgment and the evidence obsewed that the charge against the s engaged in cultivation of cannabis cannabis plants were seized from his loult on the basis of evidence on record: $11 of investigating omcer MD. Tiwari bx 1 Prasad (PW-'7) has corroborated from the Statement of convicted the (a){i) of the N.D.P.S. Act and Sentenced years, pay a hne of Re. l0,000j~ and in :rgo additional SI for four months. impugned judgment it is also seen that e 16. 10.2005 and as Such, has already yeare and two months of jail sentence , 1H 200 warm (We) W m gi 200 Wm (W) WWW#WW still undergoing ths jail sentence in inmosed 1113011 him and is Rs.10,000;—. default of payment of h‘ne 0i Taking mm consider ation the fact that the appeEant has already completed the jail i ;entence jmyosed 011 him ax1d has alscx completed jail sentence 0f two months 1‘11 default of paymeilt of film amount flue Court is of me ’op‘iniOn that ends of jusiice would be I served if the SI 0f four mon s imposed on the appellant 1‘11 default of payment of fine amou t is reduced to the period already undergone by him and he is directed to be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other CE “ Dhirendra Mishm SC. Ordered accordingly.