Santosh Kumar Jha Vs State

The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.05.2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (NDPS Special Judge), Jagdalpur (C.G.), in Special Case No. 74/1999 whereby the learned Special Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under :

¶14

Conviction	Sentence
U/s 18 read with	R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs.
Section 8 of	1,00,000/- in default of payment
N.D.P.S. Act	of fine amount additional R.I. for 02years.

¶15

2

¶16

Brief facts of the case are that on 05-09-1999 ASI, Teelu Singh Thakur (PW-4), while investigating a case of illegal smuggling in Jagdalpur, along with his staff, reached Lalbagh Church in Jagdalpur. At that time, two persons were found there. On enquiry, the accused told their names. Accused Umanath was carrying a bag on his shoulder. On enquiry, both accused persons said that the items in the bag belonged to them. Independent witnesses were called on the spot. Information has been sent to the senior officer under section 42(2) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. A notice under section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act was served to the appellant. The accused gave consent to ASI, Teelu Singh Thakur for the search. The accused searched ASI, Tilu Singh Thakur along with his staff and witnesses. At that time, no objectionable material was found with them. ASI, Tilu Singh Thakur searched the bag of accused Umanath and found opium kept in two polythene bags in the bag. The opium was identified with the help of witnesses. The opium was weighed and found 1.740 kg. The opium was seized 1.740 kg of opium from the accused persons and four samples of 25 grams each were taken from it. Samples and remaining opium were sealed and panchnama was prepared. the accused persons were brought along with the goods to Police Station Jagdalpur where the crime was registered. The sample and the remaining opium were deposited in the malkhana of the police station. City Inspector Police Station Jagdalpur Jeevan Bhalekar

¶17

3

¶18

arrested the accused and sent a detailed report and information about the serious crime to his senior officers under Section 57 NDPS Act. The sample was sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar for chemical testing through the Superintendent of Police, Jagdalpur. Where, on conducting chemical tests, it was confirmed that the sample contained opium. After due investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant along with the co-accused.

¶19

So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 6 witnesses. 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.

¶20

After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.05.2000, learned Special Judge has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal.

¶21

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is total non- compliance of mandatory provisions of NDPS Act. He mainly submits that he is not pressing the appeal so far as it relates to the conviction part of the judgment and would confine his argument to the sentence part thereof only. According to him, the incident is said to have taken place in the year 1999, and thereby more than 24 years have rolled by since then. The appellant has already remained in jail for about 03 years, 2 months & 10 days, and no useful

¶22

4

¶23

purpose would be served in again sending him to jail, therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate if the sentence imposed upon him may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

Having gone through the material on record and the evidence of the witnesses Mukesh Kumar (PW-1), Tularam (PW-2), Sunderlal Bhojwani (PW-3), T.S. Thakur (PW-4), Jivan Bhalekar (PW-5) and Diwakar Upadhyay (PW-6), establish the involvement of the accused/appellant in the crime in question. The Trial Court has discussed in detail about the compliance of the mandatory provisions by the Investigating Officer from Paras 14 to 29 of the impugned judgment. Thus considering the oral and documentary evidence on record the seizure of Contraband opium from the joint possession of the accused/appellant along with coaccused which was subsequently found to be opium as per FSL report vide Ex. P-20. This Court does not see any illegality in the findings recorded by the Court below as regards conviction of the appellant under Section 18 read with Section 8 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.

¶27

In this case, the offence was committed on 05.09.1999 and the seized quantity of contraband i.e. 1.740 Kg is less than the commercial quantity. The appellant has already remained in jail for about 03 years, 2 months

¶28

5

¶29

and 10 days, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the age of the appellant at the relevant time i.e. 25 years and at present he must be 50 years this court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be served if he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him.

¶30

In the result the appeal is allowed in part . While maintaining the conviction of the appellant under Section 18 read with Section 8 of NDPS Act, his jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him and the fine amount imposed by the trial Court is also reduced to Rs. 10,000/- instead of Rs. 1,00,000/- payable within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In default of payment of the fine amount imposed by this Court, the appellant shall be liable to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 months.

¶31

Fine amount, if any, already paid by the appellant shall be adjusted towards the modified sentence imposed by this Court and if any excess fine amount has been paid, the same shall be refunded.

¶32

The appellant is on bail. He need not to surrender. If the appellant has deposited the imposed fine amount then his bail bonds shall stand discharged.

¶33

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

¶34

Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE

¶35

H.L. Sahu

Santosh Kumar Jha v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Kumar Jha v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sangeeta Vs Shri Prabhakar Pandey

Santosh Kumar Thawait Vs Bedkunwar

Branch Manager National Insurance Company Vs Smt. Kamla and Ors.

Khushbu Dubey Vs Ramesh Chandra Tiwari

Smt. Sunita Banjare Vs Junaid Jayshi

Balkrishna Vs State of C.G.