^ 1^^ <25 (3 IN TH2 HIOi COJKF OP JUCEQ8FURS OF CHHATTISGA^i ^C BILASPUR, CKEMM^L ^PEAL N0. M.SHO OP CEIMIN'AL ^PEM. UHDER SECTICM 374 (2) OP Cr.P.C. 9.3 /2ooQ^ ^PSLL^IT. (IN jMLr. NCN JSPPZLL^T^. coNVicpia}. U/s 20Ck)(l) N.D.P.S.AGP. A 1 Pramod Chaadrakar ^ aged ^>out 22 years^ ^/o YQdram^ occupQtion Majdari^ 3/0 KuthraL, P. S. Pulgh a-b, %stt. Durg, C. G. Versus^ State of ehhattisgarh^ P.S.Pulghat, Distt.I.lirg, C. G. SfflT|NC^_. ^' Years ^.i."and fine of Rse2^0007~and ±n default of paying fine^ £^I» for 6^months» <5>- .'7 o ^cQ-iWiO OP CKEI-CTN^L .APP2AL U/S 374(2) 0£* GODE OF GRZMINAL PftOC^L J5' . i ^" ^ .^ s - ^' HI6H COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR Single Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justic®Prittnkcr Dtwaker Criminal Appeal No.83 of 2002 APPELL4NT RESPONDENT Pramod Chcindrakar Versus State of Chhattisgarh Ms. Meenu Banerjee, counsel for the appellant. Mr. Vivek Sharma, PL for the State/respondent. CRIMINAL AP?€ALUNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF TH6 COt)E OF CRIMINAL PROCEbURE JU D6M E NT (1&.03.2011) This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order doted 6.11.2001 passed by the Special Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur in Special Cose No. 35/2001 convtcting the oiccused/appeljont for the offence punishable under Section 20 (k)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs <& Psychotropic Substances Aet, 1985 (for short- "NDPS Act") and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two yecrs and pcy fine of Rs.2,000, in default of payment of flne to furt'her undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. Brief foicts ef the case are thot on 26.5.2001, secret information was recejved by Chhedu Ram Sevta, Assistant Sub Inspector (PW-1) thot two persons ore coming from ^ayhbangal corrying ganja with them. This information was reduced in writing vide Ex.P-1, information WGS sent to the higher authoritjes vide Ex.P/3 and thereafter the police part'y proceeded towards bus stand Ncrayanpur ond found the present appellant and one Mohit Cheindraker carrying cerl'ain artlcles. After compjeting the provisions of Section §0of the NDPS Act vide Ex.P/5 and taking the consent from the accused/appejjant vide Exs.P/6 and P/7, 7 kgs. of gonja was found in possession of the oiccused/ctppetlant which he was carrying on his motor cycle. Panchnama (Ex.P/10) was prepared and thereafter wetghm^nt panchnoma (Ex.P/11) was made and after preparing the samples and completing the other formalities the samples were sent for FSL and after reeeiving the reporl-, FIR (Ex.P/19) wos registered against the accused/appejjant vide Cr. No.49/2001. After jnvestigation, challan was flled on 9.7.2001 under Section 20(k)(i) of the NDPS Act. 3. In order to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined os mony as three witnesses. Statement of the occused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the charges ievelled c^ainst him and pleaded his 'mnocence and false implicatjon jn the case. 4. After hearing the parties the trial Court- has convicted and sentenced the accused/appejjant far the offence as mentioned obove. 5. Heard counsel for the parties omd perused the moterial avdlable on record including the judgment impugned. 6. Counsel for the appellant submits that she is not pre^ing this appeal as far as it relotes to the convict-ion part of the impugned judgment andwould have a limited prayer with respect to the sentence parl' thereof only. She submits thot the appellant is a very poor person ond is working os Lobourer. She submits thot for his livelihood, the appellanrt is required te move from one place to another and ort' times he find it difficult even to ottend the court'. She submits that QS the appellant has already remained in jail four about 14 months, no usefuj purpose would be served in sending him to Jdj and it would be in the interest of justice if sentence imposed on him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. She submits that fine amount hos alreody been depostted by the accused/appellcint. To this, counsel for the State has no serious objection. 7. In view of abbve, the appeal is part'ly ollowed. Conviction part" of the impugned judgment is maintained. Appedont is report-ed to have remained in jaij for about 14 months, he is a very poor person and isworking as Labourer and, therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstonces of the eose, hls sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by hlm. Hewever, in lieu thereof, fine of Rs. 2000 imposeGl by the trial Court is enhanced to Rs.4,000. Appellant is stoted 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 appellont is directed to be adjusted against fine of Rs.4,000. In other words now the appetlant would be requred to deposit Rs.2,000 before the trial Court" within six months. Failure, if any, in depositing the amount before the triol Courl" within the period stipulated, would make the appellant liable to be inside the Jaii for a period of six months rigorous imprisonment. 8. Appeal thus parl-ly succeeds. Sd/- pritinkerDiwaker Judge