,e Bench J?L.£@s.^^iLCNifflL^ILZ5a£SA.£^S,jsj£^ABa.L£i]^..^J CRmnaL APPE^L M0.^\% /2000. ^M3ML»MSM^^M^3.^SSSJM.^l^i21.M.lBS^SS§. ^aRSiS&^ocl®!;" J^'T^y $ Smt;. KamaM @ 'Stsofwife of Purosoti^ resident of village ^-Panaraguda 5 police cho^k- imada ^Dist •?Javarangapur^^ (OrisggT w Versus - s State of Madhya Pr&dssh ^SL ^ HIGH COURT OF CHH^TTISG^RH : A»T BILASPUR, Crimlnal Appeal No.418/2000, -^ Smt< Kaiaala @ steo Vs, The State of Madhya Pradesh ^.» Appellant< Respondent< ^ ^lfe ^ ^* * J u d gm e nt ( 10-04-2001 ). - BY^Hon»Shri R*S^Garg,J» : The appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 4»1^2000» passed in Speclal Case N0^71/99, by the learned Special Judge,Jagdalpur i (Bastar) ^convicting the appellant?,£or an offence | punishable under Section20 (b)(i) read with ' Section 8 of N,D*P<S* Act^senfcencing her to ( undergo R,I\ for3y2 years and pay fine of RsoS^OOO/-, ! in default of payment of fine to undergo further | R^I» for 6 months, has filed this appeal, | j 2)» The prosecation case in brief 1s that | P«W*5 G»N,Singh had gone on patrol with Head- Constable Ghanshyam and others.At about 2»00 p»m<>» he recelved a ne^s from the Informer that a woman was carrying ganja with her^ Thesaid GoN»Singh prepared panohanama of the information and imme- diately proceeded towards the saeneo Finding the present appellant wjLth suspicious activities^ the said officer ga-vre a notlce to the @resent ^," -'..< ^t - 2 - appellant under Section 50 of the ^ct, after seeking her consent took the search and could recover the ganja from the bags carried by her^ Further search of the appellant was talcen by PoWo4 Khatiza, who found that the present appe- llant ^as carrying ganja on her body also^ The said ganja was weighed on the spot^ two samples of 100 gms^ eaeh were drawn and^ ganja and samples were properly pac'Ked and sealeda The accused was brought to the police station and first infor- mation report was registered and thereafter the information relating to entire incident was sent to the superlor officer* After receiving the positive analytical report^ the police filed the challan against the appelianto After recording the evidence and hearing the parties^ the learned trial Court convicted andsentenced the appellant as referred to above<» 3)<. Shri R«N»Jha, learned counsel for the appellant submits fchat as there 1s vast difference between Ex.P/1 axid the notlce Ex»P/4 on one hand and in the statements of Poy?» 1 Archit and PoW^3 Ramlal on the other and as the recovery of the contrabands from the possession of the present appellant appears to be doubtful, the appellarrbs deserves to be acquittedc 4)<, On the other hand, Shri P»Bharat»learned Panel Lawyer submits that juxtapose reading of E^c^P/l and EK.P/4 and t,he statements of P*W<» 5 G»K»Singh, ^ould make it clear that aft^r rec^iving ^T - 3 - the informatlon, the said GaNoSingh immed±ately recorded the said information, proceeded towards the spot, gave a notice to the appellant x%d» in accordance with the Section 50 of the Act and after obtaining her consent, conducted the search personally and through P»W^4 Khatiza^ He sutmits that tbe Court below was justified in convicting the appellanto 5) o True it is that P ^Wo 1 Aarchit says that when he had reached the spot^ the present appellant Kamala was standing with the police officers and the bags were lying on the spotc But, this state- -ment of PoW*l ^vrchit would not wash a^ay the effect of the statement of P^Wo3 Ramlal, who is yet another witness to the seizure^r &ccording to P»Wo3 Ramlal, PoW^l &rchit had already reached the spot and in presence pf fchese two witnesses, the search was conducted^ . In addition to this^ from the statements of P^W»4 Khatlza^ It would that clearly appear^when she reached the spot^ about Jl^o^ 20-25 persons^ already assembled, She was requested- by G>NoSingh ^P^MoS) to conducfc the search of the present appellant^ In accordance with the directions of P.S?.5 G.N.Singh, she had taken the accused towards one-side and conducted her search^ ^ccording to tier» in the said search she could find ganja wrapped in plastlc packets around the body of the accused^ Xccordlng to P»W*4 Khatiza^ she had conducted the search in accordan^e wit] T K- the directions given to her » P,W<,5 G»N»singh clearly stated that after receiving the information from the informer^ he recorded the information in writing^proceeded towards the spot and after giving a notice to the appellant, proce^ded to take the s-earch» 6)<, Shri R»N»Jha,learned counsel for the appellant siibmits that the present appellant is a non-Hindi person, therefore, so long as the contents of the notice ^c^P/4 were not explained to her, it cannot be heid t hat the provisions contained under Section 50 of the A^ct were complied withe From the statements ?)<» The arguxnent is mls-conceived^^f 'E»^W<5 G,N»Singh, it would clearly appear that he had a conversation with the accused in Halbi language^ He had clearty stated that he gave oral infor- snation to the aecused in Halbi langixage and the accused who could speak Halbi language had a conversation with hlm. The argumentsa even forgets the faots that the accused in her Court statement recorded inder seGtion 3 13 cr»P ,C • does no<-*where say that she could not understand the language CTRplpyed in tbe notice Ex»j?/4 or she was unable to speak Halbi language^ ^fter going through the records^ especially, the state- ments of P,W*3 Ramlal,P.Wo4 Khatiza and PoW.5 G^N^Singh^ I am unable to hold that the accuaed has been wrongly convicted* The Court be^ow was > ^ \ - 5 - absolutely justified in convicting the appellant, 8)<» Shri R^NoJha, learned coun^el for the appellant submits that looking to the age of the present appellant and the fact that she is«Mraother of sraall ch.ildren^ sentence deserves to be reduced to the period already undergone^ 9)^ Shri P»Bharat,learned counsel for the State submits that looleing to the quantity of ganja recovered from the custody of the present appellant^ present is not a flt case for reducing the sentence to the period already undergone» 10 )o I have heard the parties^ 11)<. From the records it appears that the appellant remained in jail for a period of three months as an under trial prisoner, after her conviction, she is in jail since 4-1-2000, ioe» she is in jail for a period of 15 months^ by now^ she must have undergone for a period o£ 18 months plus some r^nissiono 12 )• Taking into consideration the quantity of ganja reccvered from the present appellant and the fact that she does not appear bo be boot- legger^ drug-pedlar or habitual offender^ I am of the opinlon th.at the sentence deserVes to be reduced, bat not to the period already undergone* The substantive jail sentence is reduced to 2 years<» The appellant is already In jall; she will serve out the rematning sentencei Sline amounfc and the ^'jJjjjlllj.jjg^Jg^gj^^jgJlji'jj^ default sentences are maintained^ 13 )o The appeal to the extenfc indieated above is allowede 1 Sd/- R.S.Garg Judge /Subbu/•