IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2009 / 10TH ASHADHA 1931 CRL.A.No. 488 of 2003() ----------------------- SC.15/1998 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT-II, MAVELIKKARA ........................................................ APPELLANT(S): COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------- CHANDRASEKHARAN PILLAI, AGED 63 YEARS, THATTARUPARAMBIL VEETTIL, PUTHUKANDUM MURI, KARTHIKAPPALLY VILLAGE. BY ADVS. SRI.K.SANDESH RAJA SMT.SANJANA R.NAIR RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY ADV.SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. --------------------------- CRL.A.No.488 OF 2003 -------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ This appeal is preferred against the conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Mavelikkara in S.C.15/98. The accused was charge sheeted for the offence u/s.20(b)(i) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and was found guilty u/s.20(b)(ii-A) of the NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 months and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- under the same section. On default he was sentenced to undergo 3 months imprisonment. The case of the prosecution is that on 17.12.1996, while CW13 was conducting a patrol duty, he got an information that the accused was keeping ganja in his house. Thereafter on compliance of the statutory provisions, he conducted search in the house of the accused and seized ganja and currency note. He was arrested in the presence of a Gazetted Officer and a body search was CRL.A.No.488 OF 2003 2 conducted and thereafter he was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. The evidence in this matter consists of the oral testimonies of Pws.1 to 12, Exts.P1 to P4 and M.O.1 to 4 which were marked. On analysis the court found that the accused is guilty of the offence u/s.20(b)(ii-A) of the NDPS Act, which reads as follows : “ (ii) where such contravention relates to sub-clause (b), - (A) and involves small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both; “ I had gone through the evidence and the materials produced in this case and it appears that the learned Sessions Judge had only arrived at a proper decision regarding the guilt of the accused. The learned counsel for the appellant submits before me that, the accused was apprehended on 17.12.1996 and he was released on bail on 21.2.1997 ie., about 67 days he was in judicial custody, at the pre-trial stage before he was granted bail. CRL.A.No.488 OF 2003 3 I am also informed that the fine amount has already been paid. It is also submitted that the accused is a 74 year old man suffering from various ailments and further, detention in the jail may aggravate the problem for him and requested for showing leniency, by reducing the punishment to the sentence that he had undergone during the remand period. Heard the learned prosecution also. The punishment imposed itself is only 3 months, of which he has already been in jail for 67 days. I feel leniency can be shown and the punishment can be reduced to the period of remand custody, which he had already undergone. If he had already paid the fine then nothing remains to be done, otherwise, he may have to undergo the imprisonment which is ordered by the court. In the result the criminal appeal is disposed of as follows : 1. The finding of guilt u/s.20(b)(ii-A) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, is confirmed. 2. The sentence is modified and it is reduced to the period of remand custody, which he had already undergone as CRL.A.No.488 OF 2003 4 a custody accused, during the pre-trial stage. If he has already paid the fine nothing else to be done and in case he had not paid the amount, he has to undergo the default sentence ordered. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE ami.