CR.A/1628/2005 1/5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1628 of 2005 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI ===================================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ===================================================== PUJABEN, W/O. MALAYA PADAMABI - Appellant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 - Opponent(s) ===================================================== Appearance : THROUGH JAIL for Appellant(s) : 1,MS REKHA H KAPADIA for Appellant(s) : 1, MS PUNANI, APP for Opponent(s) : 1, ===================================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI CR.A/1628/2005 2/5 JUDGMENT Date : 01/04/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned advocate Ms.Rekha Kapadia for the appellant and learned APP Ms.Punani for the State. 2. The appellant has challenged judgment and order dated 04.04.2005 rendered by learned Judge, Fast Track Court, Gondal, in Sessions Case No.55 of 2003. The appellant was convicted for offences punishable under Section 20(B) and Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short NDPS) and sentenced to R.I. for 5 years and ordered to pay fine of Rs.25,000/-. In default for payment of fine, she was ordered to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months. 3. At this stage, it may be noted that the learned advocate for the appellant did not contest the appeal so far as it pertains to conviction of the appellant is concerned. She, however, submitted that considering the facts and circumstances of the case, CR.A/1628/2005 3/5 JUDGMENT sentence imposed on her be reduced. I have thus heard learned advocates for the parties on this limited aspect of the matter. 4. In view of no contest to the conviction of the appellant, it would appear that she was found to be in possession of 1600 Gms. of Ganja on 20th May, 2003 from a hut situated in Jalaram Mafatiapara of Virpur Town. She was, therefore, convicted for offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. 5. It is not in dispute that small quantity for Ganja is defined as 1000 Gms. and commercial quantity is prescribed as 20 Kilos. The appellant was thus found to be in possession of Ganja which was lesser than commercial quantity but greater than small quantity. As per the provisions of Section 20 therefore punishment prescribed for such an offence is that of rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years and with fine which may extend to Rs.1 lacs. CR.A/1628/2005 4/5 JUDGMENT 6. From the material on record, it appears that the appellant has already served out sentence of more than 4 years and 10 months. So far as substantive sentence is concerned, thus she has less than two months of term to serve out. Learned advocate for the appellant, however, submitted that appellant is extremely poor and before her detention she used to lead a life of beggary. It is not possible to pay fine of Rs.25,000/-. 7. It has also come on record that appellant was aged 55 years on the date of the incident. She would thus be aged about 60 years presently. Considering these aspects of the matter and also finding that against the small quantity of 1000 gms. and commercial quantity prescribed as 20 Kilos of Ganja, she was found in possession of 1600 Gms. of Ganja as also taking into account other attendant circumstances such as her poverty, I find that this is a fit case wherein sentence may be reduced marginally. CR.A/1628/2005 5/5 JUDGMENT 8. It may be recalled that the offence for which the appellant was found guilty does not prescribe minimum sentence. 9. Under the circumstances, by disposing of this appeal, it is provided that the substantive sentence of the appellant shall be reduced to 4 ½ years of R.I. Order for payment of fine and default sentence remain unchanged. As and when the appellant serves out this modified sentence including default sentence, if she has not paid fine, she be released from custody if not required in any other case. Appeal disposed of in above terms. (AKIL KURESHI, J.) ashish//