Smt.Magnin Bai Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:11241

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CRA No. 154 of 20 08

¶6

Smt. Magnin Bai W/o Punit Ram Raghuvanshi, aged about 52 years, By Caste – Chhatriya, R/o Village – Tipani, Thana- Bhakhara, District – Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.

¶7

... Appellant

¶8

versus

¶9

State of Chhattisgarh, Through: the District Magistrate, Dhamtari, District – Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

... Respondent

¶11

For Appellant : Ms. Indira Tripathi, Adv. For Respondent/State : Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, P.L.

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

¶13

Judgment on Board

¶14

06/03 /2025

¶15

The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.07.2007 passed by the learned Special Judge, (N.D.P.S. Act), Dhamtari (C.G.), in Special Criminal Case No. 26/2007 whereby the learned Special Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under :

¶16

Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.03.10 10:09:36 +0530

¶17

2

¶18

Conviction Sentence U/s 20(b)(ii) R.I. for 4 years with fine of Rs. (B) of N.D.P.S. 40,000/- and in default of payment Act, 1985 of fine amount additional S.I. for 1 year.

¶19

Brief facts of the case are that on 11.03.2003 the officer of Police Chowki Bhakara has received secrete information from the informant to the effect that the appellant who was resident of village Tipani has kept contraband i.e. Ganja at her house so on the basis of the information of informant, N.P. Chandrakar (PW-6) has prepared a Mukhbir Panchnama and call the witnesses and went to the house of the appellant and searched the house and alleged to be seized 3.5 kg ganja from the kitchen of the appellant and after weight and seizure, the appellant was arrested and after completion of investigation charge sheet was filed.

¶20

So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 8 witnesses and 24 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.

¶21

After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.07.2007, learned Special Judge has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal.

¶22

3

¶23

Learned counsel for the appellant submits 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 2003, and thereby more than 21 years have rolled by since then. The appellant is a lady aged about 73 years and she has already remained in jail for about 9 months & 21 days, and no useful purpose would be served in again sending her to jail, therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate if the sentence imposed upon her may be reduced to the period already undergone by her.

¶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 C.L. Kosre (PW-4), Phalgo Prasad Verma (PW-5), N.P. Chandrakar (PW-6), Pramod Pandey (PW-7) and Ashok Pipre (PW-8), establish the involvement of the accused/appellant in the crime in question beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, considering the oral and documentary evidence on record the seizure of Contraband Ganja from the possession of the accused /appellant which was subsequently found to be Ganja as per FSL report vide Ex. P-16. This Court does not see any illegality in the findings recorded by the trial Court as regards conviction of the appellant

¶27

4

¶28

under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.

¶29

In the instant case, the appellant has already remained in jail for about 9 months & 21 days, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the offence was committed in the year 2003 i.e. about more than 21 years ago and the appellant is a lady aged about 73 years and she has no criminal antecedent, this court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be served if she is sentenced to the period already undergone by her.

¶30

In the result the appeal is allowed in part . While maintaining the conviction of the appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act, her jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by her i.e. 9 months & 21 days instead of R.I. for 04 years and looking to the poor background of the appellant, the fine imposed upon the appellant by the trial Court is also reduced from Rs.40,000/- to Rs. 1,000/-.

¶31

The appellant is on bail. Her bail bonds shall continue for a further period of 6 months as per requirement of Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C.

¶32

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

¶33

Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE

¶34

H.L. Sahu

Smt.Magnin Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Magnin Bai 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

Laximi Narayan Yadav @ Lala Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kanta @ Kamta Prasad Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jhuna @ Sujit Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dinesh Goyal Vs Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board

Shivkumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Teklal @ Tekuram @ Lukky Vs State of Chhattisgarh