HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.663 OF 2007 DATE: 18.08.2010 Between: Sana Sambaiah and another …….Petitioners And: The State of AP., rep. PP., High Court of AP. …..Respondent HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.663 OF 2007 JUDGMENT: 1. This appeal is filed by the accused Nos.1 and 2 against finding of guilty recorded by the Special Judge for Trial of Cases under the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 at Khammam and convicting them for offence punishable under Sections 8( c )/20(b) of the said Act and sentencing them to Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.100/- each. It is stated that in so far as A-2 is concerned, he suffered sentence of imprisonment for more than one year and this Court in another Criminal Appeal No.1330 of 2007 filed by legal aid counsel confirmed the conviction against A-2 and limited the sentence of imprisonment already undergone by him. So, now this appeal survives against the first appellant/A-1 only. In view of the judgment passed by this Court confirming conviction of A-2 for the above offence, this Court cannot take a different view in so far as A-1 is concerned with regard to finding of guilty. A-1 and A-2 were travelling in a bus along with two bags. When P.W.9 the Sub Inspector of Police intercepted the bus and arrested A-1 and A-2 and seized two bags of ganja weighing 5 kgs each from each of them. Those ganja bags are marked as M.Os.1 and 2. P.W.4 is the Bus Conductor and P.W.5 is the bus driver. They speak about the police stopping the bus and checking the bus and taking two persons into custody. Because of lapse of time, P.Ws. 4 to 5 could not identify A-1 and A-2 as the persons who were taken into custody by P.W.9. It is contended by the appellant’s counsel that P.W.4 who speaks about the police taking away two persons along with two bags, did not identify M.Os.1 and 2 as the bags much less deposed to contents of the bags as ganja. P.W.9 speaks to all the said details. Evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5 generally corroborate evidence of P.W.9 though not on each and every meticulous particular. Though P.W.1 turned hostile to the prosecution and stated that he functioned as mediator and signed as such in the police station, P.W.3 who is Forest Range Officer speaks about the police interrogating A-1 and A-2 at A.P. Genco Check post and seizing two bags containing 5 kgs of ganja each from each of A-1 and A-2. Thus, on facts also this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has proved guilt of A-1 for offence punishable under Section 8( c)/20(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act. 2. It is contended that A-1 is a person aged 65 years and that this is the first case booked against him under this Act and that therefore lenient view may be taken against A-1 and that A-1 was in custody for about 30 days during investigation and that he was in custody for five days after pronouncement of judgment by the lower court and before suspension of sentence by this Court. I am of the opinion that period of detention of A-1 for only 35 days is not in conformity with gravity of this offence. 3. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, but altering sentence of imprisonment from two years to three months. ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J August 18, 2010 GK HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.663 OF 2007 Date: 18.08.2010 Gk.