Partly allowed

Chaitu Ram v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC18 Nov 2016CRA/1112/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh allowed an appeal where the appellant, convicted under the NDPS Act for possessing ganja, sought sentence reduction. The court maintained the conviction due to departmental witness testimony but reduced the sentence to the period already undergone, dismissing the appeal thereafter.

What did the court decide?

Conviction maintained; sentence reduced to period already undergone; appeal dismissed.

Chaitu Ram Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Narcotics (NDPS) | Chhattisgarh HC (2016)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR

¶3

Criminal Appeal No. 1112 of 2001

¶4

Chaituram S/o Kanhaiyalal Lodhi, resident of Bhatapara Basti, Chakarbhata, PS Chakarbhata, Tahsil & District Bilaspur, CG

¶5

Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Chhattisgarh through PS Chakarbhata, District Bilaspur

¶8

-—Respondent

¶9

¶10

For Appellant Shri Suryakant Mishra,Advocate For RespondenfState Shri Lav Sharma, Panel Lawyer

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshv

¶12

Judament On Board

¶13

18.11.2016

¶14

The appellantin the instance case stands convicted for the offence under Section 20 (B) (1) of NDPS Act ahd sentenced to undergo Rl for one year three months with fine of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulation vide order dated 22.10.2001 passed by the Special Judge (NDPS Act), Bilaspur in Special Case No. 66 of 2000.

¶15

The case of the prosecution in short is that the appellant was found to be inpossession of 770 grams Ganja which was seized from his courtyard on 03.10.2000 when the Police Authorities conducted a raid upon receiving a secret information. The Police Authorities, after completion of requisite statutory formalities under the NDPS Act filed a charge sheet and the matter was put to trial before the Court of Special Judge (NDPS Act), Bilaspur where the case was registered as Special Case No.66 of 2000. In all the prosecution examined 10 witnesses and one witness was examinedon behalfofthe defence.

¶16

After the trial was concluded, the Court below vide impugned order

¶17

dated 22.10.2001 found the appellant guilty of having committed the offence under Section 20 (B) (1) of NDPS Act and accordingly convicted him for the said offence and sentenced him Rl for one year three months with fine of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulation.

¶18

¶19

¶20

Counsel appearing for the appellant at theoutset submits that the appellant in the instant case till now has already undergone one year one month and 23 days of custody and at this juncture he does not intend to contest the case on merit and wants the sentence part may be reduced to the period already undergone. Counsel for the appellant further submits that the reason for seeking for reduction of the sentence is that at the time of commission of offence the age of the accused was around 50 years and after16 years of long pendency of this appeal before thisCourt,the appellant would be aged about 66 years and at this juncture, it would not sen/e any purpose of sending him back to jail in case if the appeal is dismissed.

¶21

State counsel, however, opposes the prayer of the appellant.

¶22

Having considered thetotal facts and circumstances ofthe case what clearly reflects is thefact that the two independent witnesses examined by the prosecution have not supported the case in any manner rather they have turned hostile and the conviction of the appellant is solely based upon the departmental witnesses particularly the Investigating Officer R. S. Kushwaha PW-6.

¶23

Taking into consideration the aforesaid factual matrix of the case particularly keeping in view the fact that the appellant now would be roughly 66 years of age and he has already undergone the jail sentence for a period of one year one month 23 days out of the total sentence of one year and three months, this Court is ofthe opinion that ends ofjustice would meet if

¶24

•^)

¶25

the conviction ofthe appellant is maintained and the sentence imposed upon the appellant is reduced to the periodalready undergone.

¶26

Accordingly, the conviction of the .appellant for commission of the offence under Section 20 (B) (1) IPC ismaintained. However, the sentence imposed uponthe appellant is reduced to the period already undergone.

¶27

With the aforesaid modification in the sentence part, the present appeal stands dismissed. Theappellant is on bail. The bail bonds shall remain in operation for a period of six months from today in view of provision contained in Section 437-A Cr.P.C.

¶28

Sd/P. Sam Koshy Judge

¶29

Bhola

Chaitu Ram v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chaitu Ram v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Atul Plywood Pvt. Ltd. Vs Appeallate Authority and Ors.

Prashant Gulhare Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

State Of Chhattisgarh Vs Sukhiram Ratre

Ramesh Kothari Vs Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors.

Manoj Kumar Vs Neera Bai

Shiw Prasad Sahu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh