't"(»3v'^ ^^w^"'"L^^1 >^s-^w&w^-^<Ty'' 1>"~-A ^'•^'" gaW6-"" Slngte Bench IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRIMINAL APPEAL No.07 /2008. ni8»i APPELLANT (IN JAIL) NON-APPLICANT Balarara Suryavajishi, S/o. Mangal Rara Suryavanshi, aged about 45 years, R/o. Village Khokhara, Police Station Janjgir, Distt. Janjgir-Charapa (C. G.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, Through : Police Station Janjgir, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (C. G.) MEMORAN-DUM OF CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374''f2) OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1973 vm- ^:. •••''( '• -' I«' Kt Iffii J-^ ^^^.^•^^L'^J.-^^-;„..—— .••^^•n^'. ..'• '."'. •••'• versus Balaratu &utvavaasKi;s^:; . Sl,^;ot;CtAjattisgN;h:.: SIiri.AshQlsi t)Edt, couasel •fer'ihs'apyellarit;",. ••. ;• Smt. SmitaOhai, P.L. for.tlie S'tate.-.' .;.'•',•'•.. .-.' .•-•.^,'.: h% .. Ths- preserif-.a^peai^^sd^<3l^^agaiast. ^9%/jiidgi^^|S?is^ ^26,08.0S passed ~bv thfi,SgeciaI;dudge^NDRS;Acfj'.: ffigy%.;jtl.Sp^%l^ ? Case No.;\.Q9^20Q8 corivictiiig ^tie^aEGUSed/appellMrt 'fm-::fts£'EfS:8fS:~. ; puaisliable un(ler;Sectuai^20 (b)' (t) (ij) (Bj' of ttRii'Narc&ticsSplgg; :^n&- Psyc;Uetroplc'SubstaQcesActaad.seiitenGifig^B?:.to^^3eige~ 'im]>nsdniaentyfcr..{ou^veat^with.l^^ ?;SI lor sixjaofltlsa.. ,<.; •-.•^- ? .; ;;.'^:- -. : „.:^'.:^^.'- •:^:. -":.^.';?-'^'^ • ; ^l..'':'\\Brief.I^fs.^«^.<^e;are^^l'<3ii'?12.'4^8';at'^ .upoiy^reoeislag. secre^,^ifiM-fnatioii;;;yirfce:' ;®;;K^l7;;:."h(iusei'.Of^^-aie'^ . aceitsed/appellan^was .isijSed'; by.fl^''igoii3^''Eteas^^gEtci.5.5&OtJ£gs.'ajS! cQtitraSailQ:''..wewfciS ..'OT^;'^ :fbund^;'.'^^: <iK6':';ve;rSLtlciali;; Of ^tSe1- ^^cused/^peIIaiit'rtIu^.was^Icept^ui^Jpls^ the foriHalities, fne said eontTab@aid:;(-gan^&) 'was seized yide Ex.P/12 . and FIR ;(Ex.P/2Q).was registered agfiHist lilaB^cc^sed^appeUaiit^ . 3. .;.Iriorder to estabUshfhe guilt of fhe accused, fhepi-osecution la&s exainiiied five witnesses. Sta'teiaentoftlieaccused/appeBantwas also i-ecorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in wtiicli he d.enied. fhe charges levelled against him. aud pleaded his innocence aad. false •I ' • • " . '• . '. : • iiaplicationia fb.ecase. . ' •^.^'^f.- s'. iri;- •i1 '^ '^Ssyes ^- t;- » 4. After heariag counsel for thc parties, the trial Court has convicted and sen.tenced the accused/a'opeUant for tbe oftence as mentioned above. Hence this appeal. , 5. Heard counsel for fh.e Barties aad . peCT-Lsed the m.Sterial avauable on record includuig tiie impugned judgnieut. 6. Contention of Shri Dixit, counsel for tjie appellaat is that he is not pre.ssiag fhis appeal so far as it I'elates to conviction' psrt of the judgnient impugned aad would confine his argunien.t to the sentence part of the same only. H.e subiaits tlLat 5.540 kgs. of'the contraband was seized from ffcie accused/appeUaat which is lesser tban the coiniaercial quaa.T.ity and no rtiiniiiiiun senteiice has been prescribed for flie same. He fiirther subraits ftiat ftie appeHant has no previous crimiasl record, is a iniddle aged person, having fairuly responsibitity and fhat he is iu jail siace two yeara & nine inoaflis axid it would be in tbe iiiterest ofjustice iftlie sentence imposed on him is rediiced t.o ftie period already undei^one by him.. He ftirfb.er subiaits that the sentence offine niay be enhaaced. 7. On the other haad, supportmg fhe judgment, it has been argued bv Ifae State counsel ftiat the sentence awarded to the appeUant is proper aiid no uiterference caa be called for. 8. Consideriiig fhe lacts and circuinstaaces of fb.e case, in particular that the appeUant has no previous crmuual record, is a niiddle aged person haviag family responsibilttir, is m-jail sm.ee 2 years and nine aionths, fhis Court is of fhe view fhat it would be ia ttte iatei-est of justice if Uie jail sentence imposed on the accused/appellaiit is reduced to ftie period already undergone by bssi suBiect to eiih.anceinent of senteace of fine, . 9. Accordingly, fhe appeal ispartly attowed. Jail sentence iiaposed on the accused/appellaiit is reduced to fhe period already uiidergone by him. However, fbe sentence offine uaposed by fne Court below is enhanced t.o Rs. IS.OOO ui addition to thatofRs. 5000 to be paid by :SSy the accused/appeUant (total .fuue would be Rs. 20,000). This order shail become operational only after fhe appeUant deposits the entire amount of fine be&re fh.e. Coiirt below. Appeal ffaus partiy succeeds. f Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker ^ Ift*- Q