\» £E-.-IS£..-HISL£2ySl-2E-^A£a-A£i;-^.^^i;pyS. Criainal' Appe al No ''•s _of.. J.995 ^PE^I^S: , , •',,-. ARUN:KUmK THAKtJ&.s/o :' ( In jail^since his arrest)- Shri Ganesh Thakur.f Nai ) i.e. a/12/1993. •versus- HESPONDENJS : aged 26 yrs;,; l/o^ Mines //' X;oloney~;Vishar8rop&r, Police Stafion: JAINAGAR,.-District SARGUJA: (M.i>) ! • -L) The State of .M.&. tbBough Poli ce Station s LAKHAI UR Distt; SARGUJA (M.'P), : : • .-. .._a._l ..2Si£St;£I;jai££EA£-i3£E£-2.;£-PS2^§±2SS-.2£-^£SI£^;§2d!:2.1 f(/f^X" ^craiA£lmS-]iH^i^2N236^^SS^^SP^Api^85l^ J- . / ~ RS| ••\j ;;i^y^'^ HIGH COORT UF CHS^TnSGARH AT BILASPUR E SBsHON'BLB MR.JUSTlCBPMTmKBRDIWAKBR CfU^WO. 671/199S APPELLAKT RE8POMDBMT verays Arun Kuiaar Thakur StateofM.P. Shri Pushpendra Kuinar Patel, cozinscl for the appeUaat. Shri Visck Sharma, P.L. for thc State. APPEAL U/8 374(21 OP THB CRIMIMAL PROOBDURE CODE JVPQMBBIT (05.04.2011) The present appeal'&riscs out of thc judgiaent & order dated 29.3.95 passed by the Pirst Additiozial Special Judge, Ambikapur, District Surguja in Special Criminal Case No. 192/1993 coavictnig the accused/appeUant for fhe oflfeace pitaishablc undcr Sectton 20(b)(^ of fhe NDPS Act aad sentenciag him to imdeigo r^gorous imprisonment for fhrcc ycars with fine ofRs. 20,000. K 2. Bricf facte of the case are (hat on 25.12.93, upon recciviiig p . .: seerct infonnafion, Sub Inspectar D.K.Sharma (P.W.-5) reached near forest barrier of viSage lamga and stopped one truck and found fhe accused/appeUant sitting in the said truck and upon searoh 623 gi^ia^ of gcaya in sinall packets wcre fotmd ia lus possession. After coiapletmg aB the fiM-malitics as required iinder the law, cfaaUan was filed on 27.1~.2.^3 under Sccti&n 22 offhe NDPS Act. ^^ 3. In ordtfr to estabUsh thc guflt ofthe accused^ the prosecution has examjned fiye wltncsses. Statement of the accused/appeUant was alsa rccorded tinder Section 313 of fhe Cr.P.C. m which he denied thc charges levefled agamst lum and plcaded lus innocence and false unplication in'thc case. ..' '";te^ ''••>'„ 4. Afier hearing counsel for tt» parties, fhe trtel Court has convfcted and sentenced ttie accused/appeUant for ttic cffeace as xncntioned above. Hence this appeal. 5. Heatd coiinsel'for fhe partfes aad perused the material availablc on record including the uupugned judgment 6. Contention of Shri Patel, counscl for the appellaat is that he is not pressiag fhis appcal on aierite and would coiifine his argument to the sentencc part offfae same onty. He subraite fhat 623 graias offhc contraband was scized fix>m fhe accuscd/appeUant, wliich is lcsser than the comniercial quautity. He furfher subaaits that fhe appellaat has no previous crimiiial record, is a middle ayed person, haviag family responsibility and fhat he has reniaiaed in jafl for one year five monfhs & elevcn day-s, the mcident had teken place in tin.e year 1993 i.e. about 17 years teack,. ft would be in fhe iaterest ofjustice tftte sentence iniposcd oa taim is reduced to thc pcriod already imdeigone by tiirn. To fhis counscl for ftie State has no scrious objection. 8. Considcrtag the facts and circuxastances of ftae case, in particular fhat the appellant has ao piTevlous cnminal recotd., is a auddle ^ed persou having famity rcsponsibfltty, has xieiaained ia jail for one year 5 montfas and 11 days, tius Court is of the view fhat it would be ia the iutercst ofjustlce iffhe jall sentencc iniposcd on fhe accuscd/appeUant is reduced to fhe period already luidergoiic by him. 9. Acconlmgty, fhe appcal is partly aBowed. Jail sentence iinposed on the/accused/appeUaat is reduced to fhc period atoeady undci^one t)y hiai. However the g(£'aniouat as nnposed by fhe trfal Court wiU reiiiain as it is and fhe appcUant is directed to deposit the fiae ainount of Rs. 20,000 wifhin a period of six monfhs fi»mtoday. If fhc appeBaat fafls to deposit fhis fine axnount withia fhe stipiilated period, hc jahaU: ftuther undergo the jail sentence of onejrear.___ '; Appealthus p.artly succeeds. <;^/ Prittnker Biv/aker Judge <?"