HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTIStiAKH AT BIJL^PUR SB : HON'BLB SHRI JUSTICE PRITINKER DIWAKER |^||ii^^^3, CR.A. N0. 714/2004 APPELLANT yersus RESPONDBNT PURAN -Lal S/o. Kanhaiayalal Churcn'drs., a-gsci s.bQut 28 yssrs Occupation Hotel, R/o. Village Devri, P.S. Devri, Distt. Durg 'CGI \^^-j State of Chliattisgar, Through Statioa House officer, PoUce Station Pharasgaon, Distt. Bastar (CG) CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDBR SECTION 374i2t OF THE CODE OF CRIMmAL PROCEDURE. IS73 Shri Vijay K.Deshiaukh, counsel for fhe appellant. Shri Avinash K.Mishra, P.L. for thc State, ORDER (17.0S.2009) Today tbe case is Usted for default of appearance of the appeBaut. Leamed counsel for fhe appeUaat submits fhat fhough fhe appeUaat was released on bail on 23.2.2005 but on account of his poor fuiancial condition, he could not furmsh the baU and is stiU behind the bar. He subinits that fhe appeUant has been convicted under Section 20 (B) of fbe NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo RI for five years and a fiue ofRs. 30,000/-, ia default ofpayment offine, to further undei^o RI for one year and the appellaat has alrcady served fhe jail sentence of five years but on accouat of his poor fiiiaacial coadition, he cotild not deposit the tine aiaount aad therefore, he is stiU ia iaU. Accordiaai to the "y^f' /y^ \ !i 1ij:T":'& 1 '^ '^.. ^ •ti. ^w^" -St-- counsel for the appeUant, only six inonfhs are teft even for the sentence awarded in. default. However, leamcd coitnsel for the appeUant subinits that the appeal itself be heard jSaaUy and he is coTifinmg his argument onfy to fhe sentence part of the judgnient. Accordingty, the appeal is beard and disposed of finaUy. Case offhe prosecution in briefis that on 19.01.2004, fhe appellaat vras found ia possession of 8 kgs. of gcaya when he was traveUng in his motorcycle. The cbarges under Section 20(B) and 11 (B) of fhe NDPS Act were fi-amed against tb.e appellant and during trial, the prosecution has exaauned nzuuber of witnesses and after recordiug flie evidence, ultimately vide impugned judgment dated 17.5.2004, the appeUantwas couvicted under Section 20 (B) of the NDPS Act aad sentenced to iindei^o RI for five years and to pay fine of Rs. 30,000/ -, ia default of paynient of finc to further iindei^o RI for one year. As fhe appeal is confiaed to the sentence part only, fhis Court is not reqiured to go iato the inerits of fhe case. Leamed couasel for fhe appeBant submits fhat though the appeUant was released on bail nde order dated 23.2.2005 passed by fhis Court but on account oftus poor finaacial condition he could not furaish bail aad is stiU behind fhe bar. He ftirther submits fbat fhe jail sentence which has been awarded to hlm is of five years and fhe appeflant is iu jail siace last five aad Iialf years. This is mauily on account of poor financial conditfon of fhe appeUant that neifher he can fumish the bail nor te iu a position to deposit the fine ainount. As per the sentence, on account of non-depositmg of fine amount, he is required to uadergo RI for oue year and \^^-s -% frosa. fhis count, the appeUaat has already undcrgone RI for six inonfhs. The submission as niade by counsel for fhe appeUant has been fonnally opposed by fhe counsel for the State. As the present appeal is now liinited to fhe question of sentence oiily and the appeBant has already reinained ia jail for inore fhan five and half years, fhe appeal is parfly allowed. The conviction part of the uapugned judgment is mamtamed as it is. However, the sentence imposed upon the appeUant for default of fine is reduced to the period already undex^one. The appeUaat is directed to be released forthwith if not required ia any case. . - ' \ -un^aket