Vishnu Pad Rai vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J

In pursuance to the order of this Court dated 02.07.2024, the appellant is present before this Court today. His presence be marked.

The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.08.2003 passed by the learned Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act), Bastar at Jagdalpur (C.G.), in Special Case No. 07/2003 whereby, the learned Special Judge has convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 20-b(ii)(B) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 years & 6 months with fine of Rs. 30,000/- and in default of payment of fine amount additional R.I. for 1 year & 6 months.

Brief facts of the case are that on 12.01.2003, the Sub-Inspector, D.S. Nagwanshi was returning after tour when he reached at Navaghat road, he found the appellant standing there. The appellant was carrying a suit case. On enquiry, the Sub-Inspector found the smell of Ganja from the suit case. Thereafter, a notice under Section 50 of N.D.P.S. Act was given to the appellant and search was conducted. The police recovered 12 Kg. of Ganja from possession of the appellant. After taking samples out of it same was seized and after return to police station FIR was lodged. After due investigation charge sheet has been filed against the appellant.

So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 6 witnesses an exhibited 23 documents. The statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case.

After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.08.2003, learned Special Judge has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he is not pressing the appeal so far as the conviction of the appellant is concerned and confine his argument to the sentence part thereof only. According to him, the appellant has already undergone 10 months, the matter is pending since 2003, the appellant is aged about 57 years at present and no purpose would be served to send back the appellant to jail. Therefore he may be sentenced with the period already undergone by him. He placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the matter of Nain Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh, passed in CRA No. 886/2001 on 19.09.2019.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supporting the impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record including the impugned judgment.

Having gone through the material available on record and the statements of Ram Naresh Singh (PW-1), Mohanlal Pandey (PW-2), D.R. Markam (PW-3), Jethuram (PW-4), D.N. Nagwanshi (PW-5) and Kapoor Chand Rajput (PW-6), establish the involvement of the accused/appellant in the crime in question. It is also clear that all the mandatory provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act have been followed in the instant case. This Court does not see any illegality in the findings recorded by the trial Court as regards the conviction of the appellant under Section 20 (b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.

As regards sentence, keeping in view the fact that the incident had taken place in the year 2003 about 21 years ago and also considering the fact that the accused/appellant is aged about 57 years at present, he has liability of his family and has already remained in jail for 10 months, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice would be served if the jail sentence imposed under the aforesaid Section is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant while keeping the finding and sentence with default stipulation awarded by the trial Court intact, therefore, his sentence is liable to be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

In view of the above consideration, the appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining the conviction of the appellant under Section 20-b(ii)(B) of the N.D.P.S. Act, he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him, and the fine amount imposed upon the appellant by the trial Court shall remain intact. The appellant is on bail. If the appellant has deposited the imposed fine amount then his bail bonds shall stand discharged.

Record of the trial Court be sent back along with a copy of this judgment forthwith for information and necessary action, if any.