^ 'IIM ^W'Q'oS r^..^ ^' w^Bll IS TIIE HIGH GOL'ai OP MADiffA PH&DSSH AT JABALPUB. c^ Criminal Appeal No..^^ ^^ <^. Ar)p^el.lant $ Suresh ICumar son of Shyani Das aged about '^"<--^ 25 years, oecupation Private Servlce resident of Seemapuri Delhi, -lerays- ^__ Hespondent s State of M.P. through Police Station >«<S»<rt9<W^^^^ ..Ac!voc©! Darra District Bilaspur (M.P) <.-n -D i^, r~^ |5_ ^^(f\^ Conviction ,Hnder Section 20(b)(i) of the Harcotio Drugs and Psychotr6pia Substances Act,1935. Sentenee B.I.for 3 years and fine of Rs.l0,000/"-,in default S.I« for one year iiiore, tete APPB&L UNDSR SECIKN 374(2) GODE; OF CRIMZNAL PROGEDURB 1973. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Criminal Appeal No. 905 of 1995. APPELLANT RESPONDENT VERSUS Suresh Kumar son of Shyam Das. State of Madhya Pradesh. Shri Vinod Tekam counsel for appellant. Shri Vaibhav Goverdhan PL for respondent/State. CRIMINAL APPEALUNDER SECTION374 (2) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. JUDGMENT (01.02.2010) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 28.6.1995 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, in Special Case No. 05/1991 convicting the accused/appellant for the offence punlshable under Section 20 (b) (i) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short the "Act") and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and pay fine of Rs. 10,000, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 14.8.1990 acting upon a secrete information, motorcycle of the appellant was intercepted by the Police of Police Station Darri, Bilaspur and in the bag attached to it 475 grams of Ganja was found. After completing the formalities the appellant was prosecuted for the said offence. 3. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, prosecution has examined 03 witnesses in support of its case. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under section 313 ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the charges levelled against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. ^ ®1 i^ -2- 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 thejudgment impugned. 6. Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has already remained in jail for about five months. He submits that as per the amended provisions ofthe Act 2001 the quantity ofganja seized from the possession of the appellant would fall within the category of small quantity as defined in the schedule and as per the amended Act the maximum punishment which can be imposed for such offence is rigorous imprisonment for six months or fine. He admits that the sentence imposed on the appellant can be imposed on the basis of old Act prevailing at the relevant time. At this stage he also submits that the ends of justice would be met if the appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him and he would not press the conviction part ofthe impugned judgment. He submits that the fine has already been deposited by the accused/appellant. 7. On the other hand State counsel supports the judgment impugned. He however admits that as per the new Act looking to the quantity of ganja seized from the possession of the appellant, the maximum punishment is imprisonment for six months. 8. Having gone through the material available on record, conviction part of the impugned judgment is maintained. However, looking to the fact that the incident had taken place in the year 1990, fine amount has been deposited by the appellant, this is the first offence alleged against the appellant and that there is no previous criminal record against him, sentence imposed on him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 9. Appeal is thus partly allowed. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge