Ajay Kumar @ Sonu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

CRA No. 206 of 2024

¶5

Ajay Kumar @ Sonu S/o Late Panchamlal Satnami, Aged About 32 Years R/o Ita Bhatta Dafai Haldibadi, Police Station Chirmiri, District Koriya Chhattisgarh.

¶6

---- Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Chirmiri, District Koriya Chhattisgarh.

¶9

---- Respondent

¶10

For Appellants : Mr. Sanjay Pathak, Advocate For State/Respondent : Mr. Lav Sharma, PL

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge

¶12

Judgment on Board

¶13

11/03/2023

¶14

Heard.

¶15

This criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Cr.P.C is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20/04/2023 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS) (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case (NDPS) No. 07/2021, whereby the learned Special Judge has convicted the appellant under Section 22(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act (henceforth ‘the Act’) and sentenced him to undergo RI for 3 years with fine of Rs. 25,000/-, with default stipulation.

¶16

The case of the prosecution is that on 13.01.2020 the police

¶17

2

¶18

personal of police station Chirmiri received a secret information from the informant that one Ajay Kumar Sonu (henceforth ‘the Appellant’) resident Itbhatta Dafai Haldibadi has illegally kept the illicit/prohibited article Tablet and searching the customer for selling. On the basis of said information the investigation officer prepared Mukhbir information panchnama in presence of witnesses by giving notice to saDr. Surendra Kumar Dewangan,id witnesses. He prepared the secret information panchnama report on the spot and sent the same to his superior officer. Investigation officer informed about the right under section 50 of the NDPS Act to the appellant and obtained consent of the appellant regarding search and, thereby complying the provision of NDPS Act searched himself before the Staff member and witnesses. On being search the appellant, the police seized 192 pieces of Sposmo Proxyvan Capsul, 8 pieces of Alphrazolam Tablet Capsule and 5 pieces of Rexozesic Injection Empule containing 2 ml each. Subsequently, the police registered the FIR against the appellant and arrested him and after due investigation filed charge-sheet under Section 22(b) of the Act.

¶19

The Special Judge (NDPS), Baikunthpur registered the case in Special Criminal Case No. 07/2021 and framed charge against the appellant for an offence under Section 22 (b) of the Act and explain the charge to the appellant for which the appellant denied the charge and claim to be tried.

¶20

In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as

¶21

3

¶22

many as 10 prosecution witness I.e. Rohit Singh (seizure witness) as P.W. 1, Alok Minj (Drug Inspector) as P.W. 2, Aman Khan as (seizure witness) P.W. -3, Shivnath Singh (Constable) as P.W. -4, Lalmordhwaj Singh (Constable) as P.W. -5, Ramesh Mourya (Head Constable) as P.W. -6, Raman Raj (Constable) as P.W. -7, Jeevan Deepak Minj (Assistant Sub Inspector) as P.W. -8, Bhanupratap Singh (Constable) as P.W.9-Dr. Surendra Kumar Dewangan, Sunil Minj (Sub-Inspector) as P.W. 10 and after examination and cross examination of aforesaid witnesses recorded the statement of accused/appellant under section 313 of Cr.P.C, wherein he has pleaded that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case.

¶23

The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 20/04/2023 convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.

¶24

Mr. Sanjay Pathak, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. He submits that out of total jail sentence of 3 years, the appellant has remained in jail about 1 ½ years, therefore, looking to the short sentence, the appellant may be sentenced to the period already undergone by him.

¶25

Mr. Lav Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/ respondent, would support the impugned judgment.

¶26

4

¶27

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection.

¶28

Evidence of investigator Jeevan Deepak Minj, Assistant Sub Inspector (PW8) is that on 13-01-2021, an information was received from the informer that the Appellant was selling intoxicants illegally. Subsequently, he called constable Bhanu Pratap to summon two witnesses. Bhanu Pratap Singh, constable (PW9) has stated that as per the orders of Assistant Sub Inspector, Minj, he had gone to Chirmiri bus stand and summoned two witnesses Rohit and Aman Khan and brought them to the police station. The said evidence remains unrebutted in crossexamination. After search, prohibited drugs were seized from the possession of the appellant.

¶29

The FSL report is Ex.P/44. After testing the samples in FSL Ambikapur's presence of Tramadol in Spasmo Proxyvon Plus Capsule, Alprazolam in Alprazolam Tablet, Pheniramine in Glass Vail, and Buprenorphine in Glass Ampoule (Rexogesic Print) were found. Thus, from the evidence available on record, we find that the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant under Section 22(b) of the Act.

¶30

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that ends of justice would be meet if while upholding the conviction of the appellant under Section 22(b) of the Act, the sentence awarded to appellant may be reduced to the period

¶31

5

¶32

already undergone by them. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant under Section 22(b) of the Act is upheld and he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. Fine sentence of Rs. 25,000/- shall remain intact, with default stipulation of further simple imprisonment of one month.

¶33

Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed.

¶34

It is stated that the appellant is in jail. He shall be released forthwith if no longer required in any other criminal case.

¶35

Keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A of the CrPC, the accused-appellant, is directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in terms of Form No. 45 prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure of sum of Rs.25,000/- each with two reliable sureties in the like amount before the Court concerned which shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellant on receipt of notice thereof shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶36

The trial court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action.

¶37

Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge

¶38

Rahul

Ajay Kumar @ Sonu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Kumar @ Sonu v. State of Chhattisgarh

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

Laxman Singh Siddhu Vs Yuvraj Dipak

Akhilesh Goswami Vs Hemlal Sahu

Smt. Nammi Bai Vs Ritesh Kumar Pawar

Ramesh Kumar and Another Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rahul Kumar Agrawal Vs Dinesh Kumar Patel

Tikeshwar Kumar Sinha Vs Prakash Das