^^ ^l^f ^-^ ^^ ^ ...--^\ s!'-&; :'.';^ .•i,- n^, ^^ ?'• INTHE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATUREATBILASPUR, (C.G.) CRIMINAL APPEALNO. i3if- OF 2008 .sisS i^SSF. ,^^s s"' APPELLANT (In Jail) ^ ^ 0^%^ ^ ^' cvy RESPONDENT Smt. Monika @ Moni , aged about 46 years, W/0 Babula Khora, Caste- Rana (Adiwasi), Occupation- Chili Seller, R/0 Village- Kenduguda, Police Station- Orekel, District - Malkangiri (Orissa) VE RS U S State of Chhattisgarh: through District Magistrate, Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari (C.G.)^- MEMORANDUM OF CRIMINAL APPEAL U/S. 374(2) OF Cr.P.C. 1974 W6H COWTOF aJtHWTI.SGMH ^T BILASPUR A ELL4NT Smt.^Aonika®Moni State of' Chhat'i'isaarh Smt. Indjr-G Tripathi, counsel for the appeitant. Shri Praveen Das, Dy. (SA for the Sfate./'respondent. CRIMINAL ^PPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF THE^CO&£OF ^SimiNAi. OCEDURE JU&6MENT (08.03.2011) 'Fhis'flppealis.directedagainsttheimpugnedjudgmentof; convic+i6n:'and' ord^r .of sentence.datecf 02.11.2007 passed by Speci<A3is^^h<^arf^Spe(^^Cn mc4CaseNo. 33/2007 convictih3.th& occused/a)^3el.!ant for tte offence. puralshabte under Sec+ion 20 (b)(ii)(B5^.pf the 'Narcotic ^ Drugs &] Psychotropic Substgnces Act, 1985 (forshort "NDPS Act") and sentencing her to under'go rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs.50,000/-, in defaujt of payment of fine to furtherunder'gosimpleimprisonmentforoneyear. j .1 2. Brief facts of.the case are that on 24.2.2007 secret ] information was received by Sub Inspector D.P. Sharma (PW- 11) to theeffect that four persons including two ladies wepe selling the contraband i.e. ffanjaneor o\^ bus stand Dhaffltar'i. This information was reduced to wi-iting ,vide Ex.P-9 clnci, thereafter, the police autHprities proceeded for' raid. .After the Gccused/appellant^, she y/as served with notice una'er Section 50;of the NOPS jAct;vide Ex.P-1,2 on whi<^i|it(ie appe!lcnnt gave ;her, consertf/.Asde :Ex.P-13 ,and then ^ .l:fl i*r 1^:>' f\. w contraband was found in her possession capried in airbag. Thereafter, weighment of the contraboind item was done vide Ex. P-2, according to which aanja so seized came to 'be 6 kiiograms. Seizure Panchnama was made and other formaiities were completed. After receiving the report from the F.S.L, challan was fiied on 25.4.2007 under Section 20 (b)(ii5(B) of the NDPS Act against the accused/appellant. 3. 5o as to hold the dccused/appejiant guiity, prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses in support of its case. Statement of the accused/appeHa'it was also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which she denied the charges levelied against her and pleaded her innoeence and false impiication in the ease. 4. After hearing the parties the trial Court has conyicted and sentenced the accused/appeltcuit for the offence as mentioned above. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the materia! available on record inciuding the judgment impugned. 6. Counsel for the appellant submits thdt she is not pressing this appeal e3s far as it reiates to the conviction parf of the impugned judgment and would have a limited prayer with respect to the sentence part thereof only. She submits thati though the appeilant was granted bai! by this Couri' but as shei has failed .to deposit the fine amount, she has not been| rsleased from jail and is under confinement. She submits that the appellant is in jail since 24.2.2007 i.e. last four years and fourteen days and that she does nct have ony cnmina! antecedent, she would be obiigsd if she is reieased [ i ' l' ^ immediately. She submits that it wou!d be in the interest of justice if the sentence imposed on her isreduced to the period already undergone by her. She a!so submits that the fine amount may also be reduced to a reasonable amount as the liant is very poor. To this, counsel for the state has objection. 7. Accordingly, the conviction part of the judgmenl impugned is maintained. However, keeping in view the fact that the appeliant is in jai! since 24.2.2007 i.e. about 4 years and 14 days and.she does not have any criminal antecedents, the appejlant is a married lady, aged about 50 years and, therefore her sentence is reduced to the period aiready undergone by her. Further, her sentence of fine as imposed by the trial Cou"t is reduced to Rs.25,000/- from that of Rs.50,000/-. This order would operate only if the appeiiant deposits the fine amount ds directed by this Court. On such amount beini deposited, the appellant shali be released without cmy delay if not required in any other cass. 8. Appeai thus partiy succeeds. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge