x /•' CF0000059375 Y<1 1 I?! 'ti k fyy^ II ZHE HI&B GOIRI ©FMJ©HZAEBADESH AT JABALPBfi t (V Ai /V ^ ^—- ^SI*^-^-1-"''-^ y^wa^^^^^^^ GB .APPBAL N0.' ^/l996. s (t^^) BESPOHDEHI 8 CONVIGTIOIt U/S, 27-(a) oi^SDPS AjGT.'T^^. 7 Ba^a, aged aboat 2©years, S/o.Jagdish Maaikpuri^ r/o< Bamsagar Para^ Bhatapara, •sBAIPfiR (M.P.). versas - State of Madhya Pradesb, Throaghs P«S. Bfaata-Para, msasiGi:BAXPIB (M.p.).' S^^MCSS B-I. FOB 1 YEAB & PlSS~OF~B8 •^.©GO/-IN ©EE?Al!LI B^I. FQB T% MSMO OF CKIMNAL APPfiAL U/S.374-(2) 05' THE C©BEOF GKIMINAL PBOGEDGEE: Ihe appellant, named-ateove, teegs to state as ander :- APPELLANT: HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BtLASPUR Criminaj Appeal No.1443 of 1996 Raju Versus RESPONDENT: State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) POST FOR JUDGMENT ON O^" NOVEMBER, 2011 ^ Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge ff^, ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminaj Appeal No. 1443 of 1996 APPELLANT: Raju Versus RESPONDENT: State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) Present: Shri Sushobhit Singh, counsel forthe appeilant. Shri Satish Gupta, Govt. Advocate forthe State/respondent. JUDGMENT (Dellvered on P-"" November. 2011) Prashant Kumar Mishra. J. 1. The appeliant has chailenged his conviction under Section 27 (A) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act') and sentence of R.j. for 1 year and fine of Rs.5,000/-, in defauit of payment of flne, additional R.!. for 3 months. 2. Case of the prosecution, in short, is that when PW-3 R.K. Dubey, SHO of Police Station Bhatapara (Town) was on patrolling in the evening of 16-1-1995; he received secret jnformation that the appeilant is in possession of Ganja for the purpose of sale. He summoned independent witnesses and made a search of the house of the appeilant after seeking his consent vide Ex.-P/S. In the courtyard of the house, one packet of Ganja, one Chilam and cash amounting to Rs.110/- was seized from the appeliant vide Ex.-P/1. The said SHO came back to the poitee station and lodged F!R and sent jnformation of l<the proceedings to the higher officers. After recejving positive report of /& %.. i^< -^^,^^ FSL, Raipur, vide Ex.-P/Q, charge sheet was filed for offence under Section 20-B of the Act. At the end of trial, the appellant was acquitted of the charge under Section 20-B of the Act and instead he has been convicted under Section 27-A of the Act. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant wouid submit that the prosecution has faiied to prove its case beyond al! reasonable doubt and mandatory provisions have not been compiied with. It has also been submitted that the appeljant has already remained in jail for more than 4 months, therefore, sentence be reduced suitably. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment. 5. PW-1 Vyas Narayan Yadu is one of the witnesses to the notice under Section 50 of the Act as also to the selzure memo and arrest memo. He has fully supported the prosecution case in his evidence. He has withstood his statement supporting the prosecution even after extensiveiy cross-examined. SimlJarly, PW-2 Nand Kumar is another witness to the seizure proceeding and has remained unshaken in his cross-examination. Thus, seizure of the contraband has been proved by the prosecution witnesses. 6. Ex.-P/S Is the notice under Section 50 of the Act wherein the appellant was informed that if he desjres, he can get him searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. However, he consented to be searched by the Police OfFicer. Information to the higher offlcer was sent by PW-3 R.K. Dubey vide Ex.-P/7 & F.X.-P/8. The seizurewas made on 16-1-1995 and thereport ofthe FSLwas sent v'lde Ex.-P/9 on ^^y:r^,s, .^3:"'^ / .^^ '^ fr' ^,^..,., , ...,^ ^s^s ./^ ^^,^^ 25-1-1995 i.e. within 9 days from the date of occurrence. Thus, there is no delay either in sending seized contraband for chemical examination or in obtaining report of the chemical analysis. In fact, the accused in his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. has admitted, whiie replying to question No.10, that he has been searched by the police officer and further while answering question No.28, he admitted that one ChHam was sejzed from him. 7. From the above djscussion of the evidence available on record. the prosecution has been abje to fully prove the case of possession of illega! contraband Ganja by the appeiiant. The findjng of guitt recorded by the triai Court does not suffer from any illegadty or perversity. Convtetion js thus upheld. 8. The offence took place on 16-1-1995 j.e. more than 16 years hack. The appellant remained in jail from 16-1-1995 to 28-4-1995 in course of trial as mentioned in para-28 of the impugned judgment. On account of his faiiure to appear before this Court, his bail bonds were cancelled vjde order dated 30-8-201 1 and in execution of the warrant of arrest, he was arrested by the concerned police on 29-9-2011. Thus, in ail^ the appellant has already remained in jail for more than AVs months. a. Selzed quantity of contraband Ganja is 270 grams. Consjdering long !apse of time and the quantity of contraband, this Court is of the considered opinjon that period of 414 months which the appetlant has ajready suffered in jaii is adequate punishment. Accordingly, the ..^""•^^•s ^.^, --y ^^ii^ J f/ ^^.-y '^ .. -'.: .. "'' Ban/e sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him. He be released forthwith unless required to be detained in any other case. lO.Theappeal ispartly allowed. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge