^.5 -^ 121 VERSUS Channu Rain Dburve, S/o Raja Ram Dhurve, aged 20 years, R/o viUage DuUapur, PoHce Sta.tion Kawardha, District Kabirdhata, (Chliattisgarh). State of Chhattisgarh, Through Statioa. House Of&cer, Potice Station-Kawanlha, District Kabirdham (Chhattisgarh). iB :Haa'ble Mr. T.P.Sharnaa, J.$ Present Shri V.C. Ottalwar, Advocate for the appeliant. Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, P.L. forthe State/respondent. 1. This petition is directed agaiast fhe judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 8/5/2008 passed by fhe Special Judge, Kabridliaiu (Kawanlha) under Narcotic Drugs aud Psychotropic Substaace Act, 1985 whereby leamed Special Jude after holding fhe appellant guUty for fhe possession of the contrabaud article Gaiya coavicted under Section 20 (b) II (B) of tiie Narcotic Drugs aud Psychotropic Substaace Act, 1985 aiid sentenced r^orous imprisoninent for 2 .years and fiiie of Rs. 5,000/- iu default of payment of fine am.ount additional rigorous impri.soninent for 3 nionfhs. 2. Judgment is chaUenged on fhe ground fhat wifhout any evidence of conscious possession. of the contraband article learaed trial Court has convicted and sentenced fhe appeUaxit aforeinentioned. ,g ! . ""Sfo ^^-s;wu^-1^5^ '^-'^^•ss^c..' 3. Shri V.C. Ottahvar, Advocate for the appellant aud Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, P.L. for the State are heard. 4. Judgment impugned aad record oftrial Court perused. 5. Duruig the course of arguuient, learaed counsel for the appeUaat subniits fhat he does not waiit to dispute fhe conviction but he only waats to argue on ftie question. of sentence. 6. The prosecution stoiy inbriefis that on 26/6/2007 appeUaatwas found ia possession of 101,5 K.G. coutrabaad article in his house at vitlage DuUapur District Kabridham, same has been seized ia 8 bags but out of 8 bags sample was only taken froin l bag saine was examiaed aad found contraband ardcle Gaiya. After appreciatuig fhe evidence available on record leanied Special Judge ardved at a conclusion fhat appeUaat was found in possession of only 4.5 K.G. contrabaad article Gaaja in one bag aud prosecution has not taken sample from. other bags fiierefore, he is not liable for other article aud conmcted the appeUaut under Section 20 (b) II (B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substauce Act, 1985 and senteuced rigorous imprisorunent for 2 years aad fine ofRs. 5,000/-. 7 . Leamed counsel for the appellaat subinits fhat appellarit is iu custody fi-oia 26/6/2007 and he has coinpteted 15 ruonths. At the time of commission ofoffence he is aged 20 years. No previous conviction has been proved against the appeliaut. 8. Takins in to consideration fhe nature of ailegatLon, the aae of the appellaut at the tim.e of coinmission of the offence and se.ntence of 15 nionfhs which he has already served for 4.5 K.G. contrabaad article G^aja by enhan.cing liue amoi-mt the purpose of crimiaal justice may be served. Consequenfly, fiie appeal is parfly allowed. Conviction is •"<!». fSS-. 3 :"-*.teJ ,1? ^y/ r7sS's3' J « inaiatauied aad sentence was niodi&ed. In stead of r^orous uaprisonment for 2 yeai^ aad fiue of Rs. 5000/ - appeUaat is sentenced rigorous im.prisoruuent for already undergone (ie. for niore fhan 15 months) fi-om 26/6/2007 tfll this date and fine of Rs. 10.000/- ia default of fine amoT-m.t to further uiidergo additional rigoious im.pnsoimieut for 6 nionths. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge .^1.