M-1 't"e^ V- f ^-'. •• t "•^> • IH THE BI8H GO®B3'OF MAia?A' PBADESH AT J'ABAIfBE .Hom^ Gri.alaal Appeal Ho ®f1991 Ai'FSLUHI IIM- XAII— BESPONffiHI : Mphltr&a S/o Sibiiraitt-agad t|0 ye^rs, - resiaeat of GhsndM GKo*, T'ar&apara, Saigarfa, p.s. Bisfct. BAIGABH't M..E.)-' 'VSrsas : SVB.fa of Madhya Pradesa tlirougfa Exoi.se Siti-lHS.peotor, Saigarii (A.P.) - ; : .; ' IHE cote ©?esa^imL ^w- APPEAL OHieB SgGTIOB 37»l- ('ly PB3_G5BOM 1 ^^fe. ^° ,,»ly*» ^ i7' ^"tfc &..-r£<iA& 'lt. • ;., k*> HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Criminal Appeal No. 423 of 1991 APPELLANT RESPONDENT VERSUS Mohitram S/o Siburam State of Madhya Pradesh Shri B.D. Guru, counsel for the appellant. Shri Pankaj Shrivastava PL for respondent/State. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 f2)OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. JUDGWIENT (04.03.2010) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 18.4.1991 passed byAdditional Sessions Judge, Raigarh, in Sessions Trial No. 58/1990 convicting the accused/appellant for the offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and pay fine of Rs. 200, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that acting upon a secrete information, house of the accused/appellant was searched by P.L. Nayak (PW-2), Excise Sub Inspector, Raigarh, and 7 grams of hemp (bhang) mixed with cannabis (ganja) was found there wrapped in a polythene. After completion of investigation challan was filed before the competenf Court. 3. In order to establish 'the guilt of the accused/appellant the prpsecution has examined 03 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recordedunder Section 313 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure in which he denied the charge levelled against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. ,,!?,,5,^ -s. ^r^'f:^;. ^ f('^3&\ \. '^^- — 2.— 4. After hearing the parties the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused / appellant for the offence as mentioned above. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including thejudgment underchallenge. 6. Counsel for the appellant submits that as no effort was made by the prosecution to separately weigh the article seized and total mixed quantity of hemp and cannabis has been shown to be 7 grams,it cannot be said the appellant was found in possession of 7 grams of cannabis (Ganja). According to the counsel for the appellant seizure witness Ramu (PW-1) has not supported the case of the prosecution. He submits that the appellant has already remained in jail for about 30 days and as per the amended provision of the Act of 2001 quantity of Ganjaallegedly seized from the appellant would fall within the category of less than small quantity as describedin the schedule and the maximum punishment under that provision is imprisonment for six months or fine. He however admits that the sentence can be imposed only on the basis of old Act prevalent at that time. He submits that as the incident had taken place almost 20 years back, that the appellant is a reputed businessman of the area and there is no past criminal record against him, it would be in the interest ofjustice if the appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 7^ On the other hand counsel for the respondent/State supports the judgment impugned. / 8,* Having gone through the material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the conviction of the appellant under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act is in accordance with the evidence available on record as well as the provisions of law and therefore no interference is called for with the same. Conviction is thus maintained. i ^••'-'"" ^ ^ "vy -3- 9 . As regards sentence, looking to the fact that the incident had taken place in the year 1990, that this is the first offence alleged against the appellant, no past criminal record is there against the accused/appellant and that he has already remained in jail for about 30 days, it is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 10. Appeal is thus partly allowed. Sd/- pritinker Diwaker Judge Q^