F <2^^> ©-]3^.^ ^' i^t '^^^ ^ta;:;: '^'^'s'^S :^" BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Cr.A. No. \ ^°) /2Q09 APPELLANT (IN JAIL) P6BIS*3jSfli3ig! RESPONDENT Madheshwar Pra§ad Gupta, S/o. Late Shri Jawahar Lal Gupta, aged about 40 years, R/o. Village-Sadar Road, Near Jai Stambh Chowk, Ambikapur, P.S. Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) VERSUS The State of Chhattisgarh, through, S.H.O., P.S. Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37412} OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. 11:11; ^fSS-v*^^"' .^ l'.~... HI©KCOURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR Single Bench s Hon'ble AAr. Justics Pritinker DiWQfcer Crimmoi ADoeal No. 129 of 2009 APPELbANT (±njaii; RESPON&ENT Madheshwar Prasad Gupta Versus The State of Chhattisqarh for the appeilgnt. Pariei Lawyer for the State. CRIMINAL APPEAL UN&ER SECTION 374 (2) QF THE CG&I Shri .A.K. Prasad, ShriRavindra Aqrawa JUDertENT (04.05.2( Present dppeal arises out of the impugned Ju< order dated 02.02.2009 passed by Special Judge. Sarguja a.t Ambikapur in Special Case No. 04/2008 convicting the accused/appeilant for the offence under Section 21 (b) pf the Ngrcotic 'Dnjgs aid .Psyc1iotropic.'..SubstancssActand sentencing him to undergo rigopous imprisoriment for two years,a"d to payfins of Rs; 20,000/-;ift defaultOf paymentof fine to furi-her undergo. rigorous imprisonment for four fnonths, 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is thct on 27.4.200i upon r'eceiving secret information from the informcuit the accused/appeiiant was intercepted and 28 gms. of brown sugar was fQU'nd from his possession, which was kept by him in his pocket. After compjeting due formalities, the chatlo-n was fited bn iO.7.2008 and accordingiy the accused was prosecuted. 3. So as to hold to accused/appeilants guilty, prosecution has examined as many as 08 witnesses in support of its ccse. Statement of the accused/appeilant was atso recar'ded unde;" Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the charge ievelled o-gainst him and pleaded his innocence oind false implicotion in the case. That aparf', witness namely Yogesh Mishra (DW-1) has aiso been examined by the defence in support of its case. 4. After hearing the part'ies the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused/appeliant for the offence as mentioned obove. Hence the present appeal. 5. l-1eard counsel for the part'ies dnd perused the materid availableQn record including thejudgment impugned. 6. Counsel for the appellant submits that he is not pressing this appeal as far as it relates to convictlon pcrt of the impugned judgment cnd would confine his argument to the sentence port thereof only. He submits thot the cppel!ant has already served the entire Jail sentence of two yeo.rs on 27.4.2010 and presently is in confinment because he is not in o. position to pay the exorbitant fine amount of Rs. 20,000/-. He submits thort- this Court- has gronted bai! to the appeilait on 11.8.2009 but as the appetlant has failed to deposit cmount of Rs.20,000/-, even he could not be re'eased on baii. It has been argued that financial condition of the accused/appeliant is so pathetic where he cannot afford to pay any fine amount and if ' mercy is not shown to him, he will have to undergo the entire sentence of four months as he corsnot deposit fine omount of Rs.20,000/-. To this, counsel for the State has no serious objection. 7. In view of the above, the appeal is partty diowed. Conviction part of the impjgned judgment is maintained, Annellant is renort'ed to have served the entire sentence of ;ife- ^3t two years and presently is in confinment beccuse lie hds fdited to deposit fine amount of Rs,20^)00/-, fine amount of Rs.20,000/- as jmposed against the appellcnt is redyced to thatof fts. 500/-. If the dppetlcmt deppsits the fine amount of Rs.500/- QndlhaSalr'eoElyseFYrect fhe entirejail sentence, hebe set free if not reqyired in'any.otRer' case:__ 8. Appeal tKuspartly saeceeds. SdA PritinkerDD^aker Judge ::^