-1-^, ^."L- ^^•^ .,•<,<* f/W" .?- /- •hv"' -..••••"Cl .^..•--"otb Q IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CTSSBX86I. APPEAL N0. APPELLANT : ACCUSED (IN JAIL) /2008 [S.B.] PRADIP KUMAR S/0 THAKUR PRASAD YADAV, AGE: 21 yrs, r/o Prem Nagar, P.S. Prera- Nagar, Distt. Sarguja. v/s RESPONDENTS Prosecutioa STATE OF CHHATTISGARH, Through: S.H.O. Police Station, Ambikapur, Distt- Sarguja. CWMINAL APPEAL U/S 3T4 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE. 1973. a.gji? HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Criminal Appeal No. 635 of 2008 APPELLANT RESPONDENT VERSUS Pradip Kumar State of Chhattisgarh. Shri Ashish Surana, counsel forthe appellant. Shri Neeraj Mehta PL for respondent/State. CRIIVIINALAPPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. JUDGIVIENT (03.05.2010) This appeal is directed against thejudgment dated 18.6.2008 passed by Special Judge, Sarguja, in Special Case No. 32/2007 convicting the accused/appellant for the offence punishable under Section 20 (b) (II) (B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic SubstancesAct, 1985 and sentencing him to uridergo,rigor0us imprisonment for four years and pay fine of Rs. 25,000, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. ;: 2. Caseof the prosecution in brief is that acting upon a secrete information received on T7.11.2007 to the effect that some persorrs were looking for the customeFs to sell ganja near Saandbar barrier, the accused/appellant was.apprehended by the police and from his possession 9.8 grams of Ganja was seized. After completion of investigation challan was filed on 22.12.2007 against the accused/appellant. 3. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, prosecution has examined 08 witnesses in support of its case. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the charges levelled against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. 4. After hearing the parties the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants as mentioned above. ^ A ,<]" p.—^j-\ tL" " ^ "^, :I "'1s B '\. :f^V •"•-rfVSe •/f' 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including thejudgment impugned. 6. Counsel for the appellant submits that he is not pressing this appeal as far as it relates to conviction part of the impugned judgment and would confine his argument to the sentence part thereof only. According to him, as the appellant is a young boy of 21 years of age and he is in jail since 17/.11.2007 and thereby has completed more than two and a half years of jail sentence, that no previous criminal record is there against him and that he is a reputed agriculturist of the area, no useful purpose would be served in further keeping him under detention and it would be in the interest of justice if the sentence imposed on him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. This submission of the counsel for the appellant is seriously opposed by the counsel for the respondenVState. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction part ofthe impugned judgment is maintained. As the appellant has already completed the jail sentence of more thari two and a half years, no previous criminal record is there against him and he is a reputed agriculturist of the area, jail sentence imposed on him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. Sentence of fine is however left undisturbed. 8. Appeal thus partlysucceeds. Sd/- PritinkerDiwak Judge er '^