h " 4 Jihg‘;é:eéc'{;’ €Criména§§ CF0000059048 a g IN THEdHIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALWR CRIMINAL APPEAL N235 OF 1992 S hankarlali son of Baldeo Singh Jailwalf‘aged h7 yeaxzs,‘ Hotel owner, resident/ of $§§ Police Staticn Shea, Tahsil Bhatanara, matrict *ea‘mINAL RML UNDER smrxow 37km: OF 1m; Gong OF GRMNAL PROCEDURE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Criminal Appeal No. 857 of 1992 Shankarlal S/o Baldeo Singh VERSUS RESPONDENT State of Madhya Pradesh. Shri Neeraj Mehta counsel for appeliant. Shri Pankaj Shrivastava PL for respondent/State RIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 12) OF THE CODE O APPELLANT CRIMINAL PROCEDURE JUDGMENT (1 5.04.201 0) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19.8.1992 passed by Addittonal Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar, in Sessions Trial No. 111/1991 convicting the accused/appenant for theoffence punishable under Section 2O (b) (i) of the Narcotic-Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and pay fine of Rs. 2,000, in default of, payment of hne to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 7.9.1990 acting upon a secrete information being received by the Police, hotel belonging to the appellant was searched and two kilograms of cannabis (ganja) was seized there from. After completing the formalities as per the provisions of law, investigation was done and challan was filed against the appellant. ‘r 3. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, prosecution has examined 03.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 charge 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/appellant as mentioned above. i . 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the judgment impugned. 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 has already remained in jail for nine months, that the incident had taken place about 20 years back and that by now the appellant is aged about 70 years, no useful purpose would be served in sending him to jail and it would be in the interest of justice if the jail sentence imposed on hfhfis reduced to the period already undergone by him. 6. 7. On the other hand counsel for the respondent/State supports the judgment impugned. 8. In the facts and circumstances of’the case and keeping in view the fact that the appellant has already remained in jail for nine months, the incident had taken place about 2O years backand that by now the appellant is aged about 7O year, the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction part of the impugned judgment is maintained. Jail sentence imposed on the accused/appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, the sentence of fine of Rs. 2000 imposed by the trial Court is enhanced to that of Rs. 10,000 which would be deposited in the trial Court within a period of three months from today. Failure to do so shall lead to restoration of the sentence impOsed by the trial Court. 9. Appealthus partly succeeds. s / ///' a 92~.