^;tS ^,^E-^ >i'.,x:«^-:'' ^^p.- ^^:^ ..•••".« a^i^i^?%^ ^a?'^JiBP> ;^':^:"'^*""'./• '*:'':t>'-^V-"'ii ^\ m^ ffi ^ISS^^^^ :^a ;l%^l^^lt^®?: :J?;'P?^^:^^S^I^?^: •:^^i^^9^^^^J, •II ws ^"^ -^.»"- A >,» \.~- APPELLANT MIGH COURT OF CHHATnSGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. JusticePritinker Diwaker) Griminal AppealNo. 514of2009. Chandrashekhar Singh. VERSUS RESPONDENT State of Chhattisgarh. ShriShushobhit Singh counsel for appellant, Shri Pankaj Shrivastava PL for respondent/State. CRIMINALAPREALUNDERSECTION 374(2) OFTHECODEOF CRIIVIlNALt>R6CEDURE. JUDGMENT (22:01.2010) , f .-;;-'.'. :; • • Thisappeal isdjrected againstthejydgmentdated 09.01.2009 passed by Speeial Judge (NDPS Act) Janajgir Champa in Special Criminal Gase No,^1g^2Q08 conviGting the accused/appellant fei- the offence pi.iniSMafcile^i.llider Section 20-b (ii) (b) of the Narcotic ©rugs and Psyehotropie Sytastance Act (for short 'the Act') andsentencing him to ynciergoTigorous imprisonment fbr twoyears and payfine of Rs.5000,indefaultofpaymentoffinet6further undergo rigorou^ "'l '. imprisonmentforsixmonths. ] 2. CaS6 of the prosecution in brief is that on 28.9.2Q08 actirig upon a secrete information (Ex. P-1), Assjstant Sub Inspector Ravindra Sai Paikra (PW-11), reached riear the bridgeof Kirari can^t where aceused/appellant wasstanciing near his Luna moped in t^ carrier of which a plastic bag containing Gontrafciand was kept. Aften following the procedure preschbed under the Aet hotice was iSsy^d to the accused/appellant andin the search made by him, the, saijct bag was found to contain 2.925 kgs. arid two packets c6ritaihit'ig| gms. each, of Ganja vide seizure memo (Ex. P-13). Thereafler,FI|| Ex. P-29 was registered and fhe appellaniwas prosecuted: 3. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, proseeution l]i^ examined 11 witnesses in suRiport of its case. Statei-nerit of t^ | accused/apipellantwasalsoreGQrdedunclersecfion 313 oftt-jeiGocj^ j of Criminal Procedure in whieh tie denied the ciharges^ leiiel^dl V; t'iliMi ^H^fi IBH9 SlKtlS im.i.i w -.2 — against him and pleaded his innocence and false irnplication ih the case.; • : ' '' ^ • • : • :: • ^ .:' :.:,'. i. ;. 4. After hearing the parties the tnal GoUrt has convjcted and sentenced the siccused / appellant fbr the offence as mentioned above.:; •'.,:••, : ' : ; •• , , ' : • 5. Heard cbunsel for the parties ;a(n^ perysed Ihe^ m available on record including the judgment iBipugned. 6. Counsel fon ^he appellant submits tliat tie i$ riot pressing^this appeal.as far as it relates to convicrtiori part of the iniFiugned judgment and woiiilid confihe hisargyiTienls :0nly itG> ttae isei'iteiicl^^sii't thereof. He sybn'lits tfiat thjs js ttte firet offense alleg^d-agginst thg appellahf and nO pasl criminal frecaixt irs? ft'iei'®ss^ainstj hfrn. 5(-)e submitsthatastReapReHahtisphysic^ll^ti|iHdi^appectar(di|is!3iffi^ since 29.9.2008,; it w^yld beiinthejnteres^^jystiee^ sentenced to the'RSriecl alrgady undergone^by.him: To thig,€;ounsel forfhe resRonsleii'it^ Sflatfe has no Objectibii. 7. Accordihgly, the?appeal is partly all@wed.Gonvidion pa^rt the impugned jydgment is hereby inamtained. The appiellant is| sentenGed'totheperiodalready|undergt)riebyhim.Howe\/6r,thei sentence of fine iimposed-by tKe; CQurt ll^low is enhancgci'to Rs. 10,000 fromthatpfRs. 5000, jri def^ltsof paymeht 6f jfi^ appellantshall un(:|ergotheentire!sentene^as|''iasbe6nii'HBOsetfby the Court below. -:'l-.Sd/-: '.;' Pritinker Di'waker Judge lis-i@B o o