CR.A/5420/2001 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 54 of 2001 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No. 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No. 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? No. 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? N. 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? No. ========================================================= RAIS AHMAD HABIB AHMAD - Appellant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT - Opponent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MS SADHANA SAGAR for Appellant(s) MS HANSA PUNANI APP for Opponent(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA Date : 23/10/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD) 1. The present appeal has been filed against the CR.A/5420/2001 2/4 JUDGMENT judgment and order dated 21-10-2000 passed by the learned Addl.City Sessions Judge, Court No. 18, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No. 20 of 1999 whereby the appellant has been convicted for offence punishable u/s 20(B) (ii) of the Narcotic and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 15 years and to pay fine of Rs.2.00 lacs i/d to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that secret information was received by P.S.I. Joshi that the accused would be passing from Khokhara bridge towards Behrampura carrying contraband article. P.S.I. Joshi made necessary entry to this effect in the station diary and also informed his superior officer. Raiding party was prepared and the members stood in wait for the accused to pass by the designated area. At about 11-00 O,clock the secret informant pointed to the accused and accordingly he was nabbed. On his search 1.938 kg. Charas was found from his possession. After following due procedure, the accused was arrested and the contraband was seized. 3. At the trial, the prosecution examined Police Officers who were the members of the raiding party, panch witnesses and other formal witnesses, all of whom CR.A/5420/2001 3/4 JUDGMENT supported the prosecution case. Relying upon the evidence of these witnesses, which was found to be cogent and reliable, the learned trial Judge convicted the accused and sentenced him as aforesaid. 4. At the time of hearing of the appeal, Ms. Sadhana Sagar learned advocate appearing for the appellant fairly submitted that there has been no infraction of any mandatory provisions of the Act and in view of the evidence of the witnesses who participated in the raid, which evidence is credible and has remained unshaken in cross-examination of those witnesses, she does not press the appeal on the point of guilt of the accused and is restricting her arguments only to the quantum of sentence awarded by the trial court. She has submitted that the appellant was a young boy of 20 years at the time of incident, that he is not a habitual offender and has never been accused of any other offence. She further submitted that the accused is not a professional carrier of drugs but is a victim of circumstances. In support of her submission she has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court rendered in case of Balwinder Singh Vs. Asstt. Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise, reported in (2005) 4 SCC 146. In that case, the Supreme Court considering the fact that the appellant was convicted for CR.A/5420/2001 4/4 JUDGMENT the offence in question for the first time and had no other criminal record, reduced the sentenced from 14 years to 10 years. We are told that the appellant before us has undergone about imprisonment of about 9 years and 11 months and that he has been convicted for any offence for the first time. In view of these facts and having regard to the fact that the appellant is still a young man and can settle down in life in a positive manner, we are inclined to accept the submission made on behalf of the appellant. We also feel that it would be in the interest of justice if the sentence is reduced. Accordingly, while upholding the conviction of the appellant as recorded by the trial court, we modify the sentence imposed by the learned trial Judge and reduced the awarded sentence from 15 yeas to 10 years. We also reduce the amount of fine from Rs.2.00 lacs to Rs.1.00 lac i/d thereof S.I. for one year. Appeal is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. (Bhagwati Prasad, J.) (Bankim N. Mehta, J.) /JVSatwara/