'':-"^. ;'w- -J-- IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR cd— Cr.A. NO.^L^/2008(r&.B.^ APPELLANT fIN JAIU : Smt. Sushila Yadav W/o. Aanandi Yadav, aged about : 40 years,. R/o. Village : ^ Godhanpur, Police Station : p^^ ^ Ambikapur, , Distt. Surguja ^A°^ (C-G-) ^ te^ RESPONDENT ^'K7.,...:-r(?;f' ,.^i^- ^- ? ^" '^^ w ^^•' '.(:v; ^..•-^'^•"•^^- v^^o1 VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh Through : Police Station : Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) ^. ,i- CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 T21 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE. 1973 -« ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTIS^RH AT BILASPUR Single Bench : Hon'ble Mr, Justice Pritlnker Diwaker Criminal ApDeal No. 345 of 2008 ^PPELLANT RBSPON&ENT Smt. Sushiia Yadav Versus State of Chhattisgarh Shri Vivek Kumor Pcrsdey, counsei for the appellcuit. Shrj Neeraj AAehta, PL for the State/respondent. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 C2) OF THE CO&E OF CRIMIN^L PROCEDURE JU D6M E NT (22.Q2.2011) This appeai is directed agoinst the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.01.2008 passed by Speciot! Judge, Sarguja/Ambikajxir in Speciai Criminaj Cose No. 18/2006 convlctin.g the accused/Qppeliant for the offence punishabie under Section 20 (b)(ii)(b) of the Norcotic Drugs A Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and sentencing her to undergo rigorous Imprisonment for seven years with fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. 2. Brief focts of the case are that on 24.8.2006, upon receiving secret information and after comp!etin9 ail the formaiities as required under the Speciai Act, Pqiice Inspector- Nasor Siddiqui (PW-4) apprehended the accused/appeSiaint neor Pratappur, Sarguja and found 15 kgs. <& 250 gms. ffanj'a in her possession which she was carrying in a plastic bag. Seizure ponchnama Ex.P-30 was made in presence of the witnesses and after completing the formdities, F.I.R. ^.-. (Ex.P-34) was registered agoinst tKe accused/appeiiant. After completion of investigation challanwos filed on 26.10.2006. 3. So as to hoid the accused/appe!!cyit guiity, prosecution has examined as many as 6 witnesses in support of its case. Statement of the Gccused/appeilQnt was aiso recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Crimind Procedure m which she denied the charges leveiled against her wid pleaded her innocence and faise impiication in the case. Apart from this, one witness nameiyJ.R. Thakur (DW-1) has dso been examined by the defence in support of its cose. 4. After hecring the parties the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused/appeilant for the offence as mentioned above. 5. Heard counsel for the part'ies and perused the materia! avoilable on record inciudjng thejudgment impugned. 6. Counsei for the appeiiant sybmits that he is not pressing this appeai as far as it reiates to the conviction part' of the impugned judgment and would have a iimited prayer with respect to the sentence pari- thereof only. He submits that the appeiiant is a deserted lady, aged obout 43 years, having two Ghiidren and there is no-one in her famiiy to take care of her children. He submits that the appeiiant is in jaii since 24.8.2006 i.e. about 4 j years, has no criminai antecedents, she wouid be obiiged if she is reieased immediately. He submits that it wouid be in the interest of justice if ths sentence imposed on her is reduced to the period Giready undergone by her. To this, counsel for the State has no serious objection. 7. Accordingjy, the conviction part of the judgment impugned is mdntained. However, keeping in view the fact that the appeiiant is a deserted iady, aged about 43 years, having two chiidren and there is no-one in her famiiy to take care of them and that the appeliant is in jail since 24.8.2006 i.e. about 4 ^ years and has notCriminat antecedents, and therefore her sentence is reduced to the period aiready undergone by her. However, her sentence of fine as imposed by the triai Court is maintained as it is. This order wouid operate only if the Qppeijant deposits the fine amount as directed by the court below. On such amount being deposited, the appeiiant sholl be released without any deiay if not requlred in any other case. 8. Appeal thus partlysucceeds. Sd/- PritinkerDiwaker Judge