Appeal against conviction and sentence under NDPS Act. High Court upheld conviction but reduced sentence to actual jail terms served, maintaining the fine amount and bail conditions.
Sentence reduced to the period already undergone; conviction and fine maintained; bail bond continued for six months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRA No. 2686 of 1998
---- Appellant
| Versus |
|---|
---- Respondent
For Appellant Shri Vipin Singh, Advocate. For Respondent/State Shri Avinash Choubey, P.L.
HonBle Shri Justice Gautam Chourdiya Judgment on Board
08/08/2019
2
indicated place and apprehended the appellant. After obtaining his consent a search being made on his motorcycle, one jute bag was recovered from the Dickey of motorcycle containing contraband. On weighment being done, it was found 2 Kg. After drawing 30 gm Ganja from the said quantity, it was sent for chemical examination. As per FSL report Ex.P-15, which confirms the seized contraband to be Ganja.
3
seizure to show as to whether seized contraband was kept in safe custody. Therefore, there is major scope of manipulation in the case. At the time of incident, accused was injured and admitted in hospital, he had no knowledge about the incident, he was informed by the police only about the accident but after sometime he was arrested and falsely implicated in this case. Alternatively, he submits that if this Court ultimately comes to the conclusion that conviction of the appellant is just and proper, considering the fact that at the time of accident, the appellant was 31 years of age, the incident occurred on 05.11.1996 i.e. about 24 years ago, there is no criminal antecedent, he has already remained in jail near about seven months. He may be sentenced to the period already suffered by him.
4
of aforesaid witnesses which remained unrebutted in crossexamination. Compliance of Sections 50,41 and 42 by prosecution stands duly proved. PW-4 Mohan Singh Painkara states that on the date of incident while he was returning to his house at about 5 pm, on the way he saw some Police Personnel and other persons including the appellant who was bleeding from forehead.
5
time of incident, the appellant was 31 years of age, the incident occurred on 05.11.1996 i.e. about 24 years ago, there is no criminal antecedent of the appellant, he has already remained in jail near about seven months, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice would be served, if the appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him.
Sd/Gautam Chourdiya Judge
Akhilesh
3 issues framed by the court
Whether procedural compliance under Sections 41, 42, and 50 of Cr.PC by the Investigating Officer is proved undisputed?
Whether the conviction under Section 20 of NDPS Act is just and proper based on the evidence?
Whether the appellant should be sentenced to suffer the period already undergone in jail in view of protracted delay?
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Ganpati Verma
State of Madhya Pradesh
Gautam Chourdiya
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
