Gulab Chand Shukla vs State Of Chhattisgarh

@JUDGMENT-JUDGMENT

Arvind Singh Chandel, J

This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 25.09.2002 passed in Special Case No. 26 of 2002 by the learned Special Judge (N.D.P.S) and Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, (C.G.) wherein, the Appellant has been convicted under Section 20 (B) (ii) (b) of NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 02 years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulation.

According to the case of prosecution, on 20.03.2002, K.L. Yadav, A.S.I. (PW-03) received an information that the Appellant is in possession of some illicit Ganja. He recorded the above information in Rojnamcha Sanha and prepared Mukhbir Suchna Panchnama in presence of the witness. He also informed about this information to the higher officials, thereafter he reached the spot along with the witness. In compliance of Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act he gave notice to the Appellant and obtained his consent for search. On being searched, total 03.700 Kg of contraband Ganja was found from the possession of the Appellant. He seized the above contraband ganja and prepared four sample packets of 50 grams each and after completion of other formalities he returned to the police station along with the seized property and the Appellant, then he recorded the FIR and deposited the seized property in Malkhana thereafter, two sample packets were sent for examination to the FSL, from where the report confirmed that the property was contraband Ganja. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed by the police. To robe the Appellant in the crime-in-question prosecution examined as many as total 05 witnesses. In the statement of Appellant recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, Appellant pleaded his innocence and false implication in the matter, however no defence witness was examined by the Appellant. After completion of trial, Trial Court convicted and sentenced the Appellant as mentioned in Para 01 of this judgment. Hence this appeal.

Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that he does not want to press this appeal on merits and confines his argument to the sentence part only. He further submits that out 02 years of jail sentence the Appellant has undergone about 08 months, he has no criminal antecedent and he is facing the lis since 2002, i.e. for about 18 years. He also submits that presently the Appellant is more than 60 years of age. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the Appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

On the contrary, learned State Counsel opposed the appeal and supported the impugned judgment.

I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record minutely.

Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, particularly considering that out of total jail sentence of 02 years, the Appellant has undergone about 8 months, he is facing the lis since 2002 and there is no criminal antecedent against him, I am of the view that the ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction imposed upon the Appellant, the jail sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him.

Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the Appellant under the aforementioned section is affirmed and he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. The fine sentence is affirmed.

Records of the Court below be sent back along with a copy of this order forthwith for information and necessary compliance.