-Y'- C%N ^-:- ^ CF0000658'7^' '\/'..^s-"':~'/ :1'^ .-^-^- ,-.', /r^-,.," , W TI®HIGH OOU.RT OP MAOKA PmDESH ATJAB&LEUR. CPJMINAL APP2AL vio£>^> OP 1993. / 11 / AF'PELLANT s- (aTsanstyam ^ scsi of 'EyarelQl a^ed 20 year^ •I^TTaZIT „ . ,..! , / resid.eri.t of village Kawa^. ,Qi@tri@t RaJ^^r^ • ^US« JSSW^S^S <- tate c£ M«P» y ^ - A? ^ ^".^ -^ '< Qf ^ 1 ^DQ^ietiOD U/S 20 Na TOfe otic Act < sesaterx^* R»I<».gorfi^e years &..fin@ of ss< l©0©/-.©ria default c.-yfine R^Ie?®rt^om%3th»^' ^3MINAL API@ -t?BD^.-SSCTI©N?'37§(;OP,:CRT-«P^.®^fil;. - BIBHUTI PRASAD Digitally signed by BIBHUTI PRASAD Date: 2025.02.07 12:55:29 +0530 ^. ^.t"^ llini iiiiiir—1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSGARH AT BILA8PUR SB : HOITBLE MR. JUSTICE PRITINK&R VS^AJkX^ L.NQ^8S2/1993 APPBLLANT RB8PONDBNT versus Ghaashyam State off Madhya Pi'adesh Shri A.P.Shanoa, counsel fi>r fhe appeUaat Shri Vaibhav Goverdhaa, P.L, for tiie State, APPLICATION U/8 374 OF TWB CR.P.C. JUDGMBNT (22.03.2010) This appeal is directed agamst fhe ju^meat dated 26.7.1993 passed by fhe Additional Sessions Judge^ Raipur m Special Criminal Case No. 115/90 coiivictmg fhc accused/appellaat for fhe offence piinishable under Secrtaon 20 of Uoe Narcotics Drugs aad Psychotoopic Subatances Aot aad sentenciag him to undergo r^oix^us imprisoxiinent for five years and to pay ISne of Rs. 1,000 in default of fine to further undergo rigorous iDDiprisoiiment for two monfhs. 2, Brief facts of fhe case are fhat on 27*11.90^ upcm receiviag secret mformation, polfce sent one Deenaoafh tay givin^g a note of 5 denoinination to purchase sonae gaaga from fhe accused/appellant Thereafter fhe ganja so purchased was sent iaa sachet for chemical aaalysis aiid aflber receivmg fhe report Ex.P/9 from fhe FSL, &^ar, fhe chaUan was filed agaiast the accused/appeUant. 3. In order to estabUsh fhe guikt of the accused, ffee piDsecution has examiaed six witiiesses. Statenient of fhe accused/appenaat was also recorded under Section 313 of tihe Cr.P.C. ia wfaich he denied fhe chai^e leveHed agamst Tiirn and pleaded his iruaocence and false implication ia fhe case. This apart, one defence wtoaess has also teen examined by hmi ia support ofhis ca8e. % i— 4. After hearing counsel fi>r fhe partieSy (he trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused/appcUan* for the oflFence as mentioned above. Hence this appeal, 5. Heard counsel for fhe partie^ atid perused ftie matenal avaflable on reeord including ttie imptigned judgiaent 6< Counsel for tlie appeUaat submits tihat he is not pressiag this appeal as far as it relates to conviction part of the impugned jud^caent and wouM confine his argiiaaient to the sentence part fhereofonfy. Accordiag to him^ at fhe tiaie of commission of fhe offence^ fhe appellant was a young boy of 20 years axid as on date he 13 aged about 40 yean^ that fhe iacideiit is said to have taken place on 27.11.1990 ie, about 20 years back axid even fhe we^hment of fhe garya has not been done by fhe prosecutiaa. He sxd)mite ffceat as per fhe aeizure xaexno iteelf only two gnuiS, of ganja was foxuid m a small packet whfch was aUegedly purchased by Phoolchand (P.W,-5). He further submits fbat iiader tiie provisions of newly amended Act fhe said quantity of ganja wUl comie under fhe snxaU quantily aad fhe aiiaxmiiimi punishment under fhe same would be of six xaonfhs. He subinits fhat fhe appeUant has already remained m jail for about 4 moaths 13 days and no useful purpoBe wonld be sewed ia agaio. sendiag hiyn to jail aad it wouM be m. tke iiiterest ofjustice if fhe sentence iiiipoi^d on him is reduced to ffae period already undex^one by him 7. On tiie ofher hand, counsel jfor fhe Stete submits that fhe appellant cannot take advaatage of the new Act beceaise ia his case fhe provisioas of oM Act would govem., He however adxmts fhat proper weighment of garya waa not done by the prosecution. - 8. True it is, fhat the case of the appella&t would be goveraed by the old Act aad not by ihe new Act but lodkiag to fhe fact fhat fhe weighment ofthe garya was n@t done tey ^' tS> the piosecution and the fact fhat titie mcident is alleged to have taken place on 27,11.90, the fact fhat at fhe time of incident fhe appellant was aged about 20 years aad at present he is aged about 40 years and is fhe owner of a hotel, he has atoeady reiaamed ia jall for about 4 months aad 13 days, fhe appeal is parUy atlowed, Convictioa part of the impugned Judgment is maintaiaed- AppeUaat is repprfced to have remaiaed in jadl for a period of 4 monfhs and 13 days aad fherefore his senteace is reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, in lieu fhereofy ftte fine of Rs. 1,000 imposed by the trial Coiirt is eiihanced to Rs, 2,000, Appeal fhus, partly succeeds. — Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge k