'C;F'5500059363 ./ " ^ffil about 30 years, resident < Uinariyai, Police Statioa - istrict Raiaarh* M.P, ,%PPEXL UNDER SECTION 374 S 2) CRmiNAL PROCEDURE_ CODE ,i'if 4;X'<^, ^ >T ,-r s' le Bench : Hon'bie- .r. Just'ce. Pritinker DiWQk.er ^00 sor' of Benu Ram So.hu fhs \.' Shri Sonjay Agrawa!, counsel for the o.ppe.flo-nt. Lowyer for the State. '^) ~~/ ' «/ Shri Neeraj AAet .^8.***-i* lwl,! Present anDeai o.r*ises out of the imouaned JudQment and order dated 19.07.1991 passed by First Additionai Sessipns Judge, Raigarh in Sesslons Trial No. 54/1991 conyicting the accused/asoe.Hojit for the offe-nce Dunisho.b!e unde-r Sectio" 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and sentencing him to undergo rigorous irnprisonment fs" three years, and pay firse of fts.1,000, in default of po.yme.nt of fine to furS'her undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Case of the Drosecution jn secret information wo-s received by carrying contro.bond orticiss {iyanja} Saramkela, R.6.S. 6outo.m (PW-4) inte-rcepted the accused/appeliant from his possession vides Ex. the accused/appellcint was prosecuted Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs ond ( Act. i-s that on 21.7.1991, o. pollce tho.t someone is Limra squo.re, ct village ched to the si ^' p-2. After invsstiQation for the offence under ^/chotr'opic Sub-stonces w ."•%fe 1 •'^;^-^& y '^ ^y ^ s :^// 3. So as to hoid to accused/appeiiant guilty, prosecutior! has examined as many as 06 wi+nesses in support of its cose. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Sectjon 313 of the Code of Crimino! Procedur® in which he denied the cha?'ge.s ievelled o.gainst him and pleo.ded his innocence ond false implication in the case. 4. After hearing the pQrties the tria! Court has convicted and sentenced the accused/aDDeliwt fn" the offence as rr mentioned above. Hence this appea! r the Dari'i' 6. Counsel for th® appellants submits that he i-s pressing this appeal os far os it relates to conviction po.rt the impugned judgment and would confine his argument to Ty. "5 19 to him, appet'ant ths incident is about 19 fews back, now the appeiiant is iliTv. no to have taken place o.ged about crimina! case has purpose wou!d be in the interest of justlce if sentence imposed on h i reg'si in ser st him. no i •o iail d it wouid be im is submits as per the amended provisions of the Act 1 kg comes within the definitjon of smai! quantity for maximum sentence is six months. - -j 7. On the other act is o.DDlico.bls to thi counse! for the state suppori's the submits that the provision of the oid i o.ppe!!a"t and not the new act and therefore, no leniency ca". be shown to the app< '^ 8. In visw of above, the appeal is part-ly aitpwed- Conviction. Judgment is 'hs, h-as no po.st crimino.i record, incident had token piace about 19 yeors back, is reduced to the period alrec.dy undergone by ', in lieu thereof, fine of Rs. 1000 imposed by the trial Court is enhonced to Rs.3,OCX)/-. This omou"t 's directed to be deposlted before the courf- beiow within o. period of four of receipt of copy of this order. Sd/- n the Judge