BEFORE THE HON‘BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRxMINAL APPEAL No.{§}3>w‘/2001. (APPEAL Us.318 OF CR.P.C. Read with Bea. ae($) N.D.P.s. AeglNsT CONVECTION). APPELLANTZCONVICTS : MOHEE KUMAR SO NAND KUMAR (IN JAIL CUSTODY). Age 26 yrs. occ. LAEOUR ‘«Gram KUTHREL, THANA PULGAQN, Distt. DURG C.G. k VERSUS BSPONDENTS 3 STATE OF CHHATTISGARH (PROCEDUTION) Thréugh: STATION HOUSE OFFICER POLIcE STATION NARAYANPUR DIsTT. BASTAR (C.G.) R £ u éogvicgign U/s. 20 (b) NDPS Act 5 utkmxxg Sentence g ge§r§ §I_& fine gs; ogoz. a/ APPEAL U/s. 37%‘0? Cr.p.c. Rea§ with Sec. 36(B)N.D;p.c. AGAINST CONVICTION . z / z @ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTI$6ARH AT BILASPUR Single Bench z Hon‘ble Mr. Justice Prifinkar Diwaker Criminal Appeal No, 1212 of 2001 AP?ELLANT Mohif Chandrakar' Versus REéPoNDENT State of Chhatiisgarh Ms. Sangeeta Mishm, 69unsel for The appellant Mr. Vivek Sharma, PL for the 5ia‘fe/respond‘em‘. CRjIeINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF THE CODE OF I ‘ . CRIMINAL PROCEDURE J U D G M E N T ‘ (1&03.2011) $ This appeal is direcled against the impugned judgment and order dafed 6.11.2001 passed by} 1he Special Judge, Basfar' at Jagdalpua in Special Case No. 34/2001 conviciing the r accused/appellani for ihe offence punishable under Section 20 (b)(i) of fhe Narca‘ric Drugs d Psychofropic Substances Acf, 1985 (for short “NDPS Act") and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonmeni for Two years and pay fine of Rs.2,000, in default of paymem‘ of fine fa further undergo rigorous imprisonmenf for six monfhs. l: i 2. Brief fac’rs of‘ihe case are fhaf on 26.5.2001, secref information was received by Chhedu Ram Sevia, Assisfanf Sub ‘ Inspecfor (PW-1) fhaf fwo persons are coming from 7 Gayhbangai carrying garya With them This information was reduced in writing Vide Ex P—1 information was sent to the higher authorities Vide EXP/3 and thereafter the police party proceeded towards bus stand Narayanpur and found the present appellaht and one Pramod Chandrakar carrying certain articles, After completing the provisions of Section 50 of the I{ NDPS AC1 vide Ex.P/5 and faking fhe consent from fhe accused/appellant vide Exs.P/6 and P/7, 5 kgs. of ganja. was found in possession of the accused/appellanf which he was oarr'ying on his mofor' cycle. Panchnama (Ex.P/10) was prepared and iher‘eaf‘ier‘ weighmen‘i panchnama (EXP/11) was made and dffer' preparing fhe samples and compie'i'ing *he other homalities the samples were‘sen‘r for FSL and after receiving The report, FIR (Ex.P/19) was registered against the actll‘sed/appellant' vide Cr, No.50/2001. After investigation, did/an was filed on 9.7.2001 under Section 20(b)(i) of the NDPS Act a 3. In order to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined as many as three witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the charges 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 for the offence as mentioned above. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the judgment impugned. 6. Counsel for the appellant submits that she is not pressing this appeal as far as it relates to the conviction part of the impugned judgment and would have a limited prayer with respect to the sentence part thereof only. She wbmits that the appellant is a very poor person and is working as Labourer. She submits that for his livelihood, the appellant is required to move from one place to another and of Times he find if difficult even fo offend fhe court She submits ‘i'ha'l' as fhe ‘ appeHanf has already remained in jail four abou‘l’ 13 monThs, no useful purpose would be served in sending him To jail and ii would be in the interest of jus‘l'ice if sentence imposed on him ;is reduced io The period already undergone by him. She submits fhai' fine amount has already been deposited by the ig‘cgused/appellant. To this, counsel for the State has no serious objection. ‘7. ‘ In view of above, the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction :part of the impugned judgment is maintained. Appellant is reported to have remained in jail for about 13 months, he is a very poor person and is working as Labourer and, therefore, in the peculiar facts and circUmstances of the case, his sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, in lieu thereof, fine of Rs. 2000 imposed by the trial Court is enhanced to Rs.4,000. Appellant is stated to have deposited the fine of Rs.2,000 imposed by the trial Court. If that is so, the amount of Rs.2,000 already deposited by the appellant is directed to be adjusted against fine of Rs.4,000. In other words now the appellant would be required to deposit Rs.2,000 before the trial Court within six months. Failure, if any, in depositing the amount before the trial Court within the period stipulated, ,would make the appellant liable to be inside the jail for a period of six months rigorous imprisonment. 8. Appeal thus partly succeeds. @