.^v v i. HI^H,COURZ^OF:CHHATTXS@ARM,AT-BILA.SB^ iro »ni^ £r"niiSii_AB!e®aLN«».L_^I_.or-2flQ8 AppeJJant (in Jait) R@SDondt.nt< Kishu.n Ram S/o Agarsai Rajwade, Aged about- 4.2 Years, ft/o - Village -a.5apkara (Baryam), Tliana au Syrajpyr,, Distt.- Surguja (C.G.} V^r'sys State of Chhatti^arh 'Through;- Incharge poiice s+ation-SyraJpur, bsstt.- Surguja (C.G\j (CRIMINAL APPE.4L UNDER SECTTQN 374 (2) OFTHE COt)E OF CKLMIN^LPROCEDURE) (SB: HON'BLE SHM JU.STICET,P. SHARW.A) Prctent4* Shri Neeraj AA.ehta, coun^cl for the appeltant. Shri Pankaj Shrivostava, Panei iawyer'for the State^ QML JUG^ENT 0»ssssd cn 30th Ssptember. • 2QQ8). This appeal ?s dlrected agalnst 1^e j.udgment of conviction and order of sentence dated. 17,7-2008 passed by Spe.ciaijydge (Under N,D.P.S. Act), Ambikapur, in Speciai. Criminal Case No 27/07/whereby and whereunder the appeitent'has been. convicted for the offence punishable under Section 20 (B) (2) (B) of the Neircotic Drug and. Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 .(hereinafter refereed to as 'the Act') and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay fjneof Rs,10,000/-, jn defaujt of payment of fine to fyr1+ter undergo RJ. for 3 months. 2: The judgment is chaHenged on -ttie grQund that ^lthout there. being any evidence of consclous pos^-s^ion o'f the eiicjt ©anjaof {ess than commercial quantity and jgnorin^ the fact that the prosacution has not comp'ied with the mondatory provjslons of l+ie Act whteh Js meant for safegyard'.to the accused/appef'lant, Jearned tria! court has committ'ed an iltegajity m convictjng and sentencing the appeflant as aforementjoned, 3. • According to case of the prosecutjon, the applicant was found m posse^sion of 3.200 Kg-. contraband article (0anja) on l0,6.2007,, After complying the procedure, same were. se'zed, .Samples were taken and sent for chemicaf examination- Dehatl Nalishi and FI^ were bdged; After recording the statement under Sectlon 161 of the Code of Cr-imina! Procedure, 1973 and after completjon of investigation, charge sheet was flled in the Court of the Specia! Judge, Ambikapur. 4, . In order to prove the g.uilt of the appeJlant/accused, the prosecution has examined as many as 7 witnesses. Statement o.f the accusad/appe!bnt was recorded under Section 313-of the Code of Crimina! Procedyre, 1973, jn whlch he dented the -circy.mstonces appearsn9a9a?nst^?^ ancl pfeaded innocence and false Impljcatlon in the case, 5» Leamed Specia! Judge- after affording opportunlty of hearing to the parties, conylcted and sentenced the accuse.d/appelbnt QS aforementioned. 6. I have heard Shri Neeraj .Mehta, counse! for the appeJbnt and Shri Pankaj -Shrjvastava, Pane! tawyer for ^e State- and perused the jydgment Jmpugned and record of the trlal court. Z Learned counsel for 1+$e appelhnt submits thot hc is' not djspyting the convsction, but he wants to arQue oniy on the questlon of sentence. Learned coimsel furth-er. submits that the appelbnt was found in possession of only 3.200 kg, controband artlcte (Sanja) and same Is. less than commercia! quantity. The <sppe!tent has been sentenced of . rjgorous wprisonment for 2. years and to pay fine :<^.- 8/- Rs<10,000/ua and no preyious convlction has been prove.d a9ainst hw- He is rustic viiSager and head of the family. Learned counsel also submits that sentence of rigoro^us smprisonme-nt for 2 years is harsh and seve-re. 8. This is a case of 3,200 j<9- contraband article (9anja) foynd jn possession of the. appejlant which is Jess 1+san commercla! qyantity. Taking into conslderatlon the facts and circymstances of 1+ie case,- sentence irnposed upon the appelbnt ?s re.quj.red for rec.onsidecation. 9. Consequently, t^e appea! is part'y Qllowed. CQnviction Is r^aintained. However, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs,10,000/- is modified and instead l^ereof, the appelbnt is sentenced of rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of flne to further undertt9n &-I' for 3 months. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge