Banarsi Das Vs State of Chhattisgarh

The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.03.2007 passed by the learned Special Judge, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.), in Special Criminal Case No. 19/2006 whereby the learned Special Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under :

¶16

Conviction Sentence U/s 20 (b)-ii(b) R.I. for 02 years with fine of Rs. 10,000/- in N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 default of payment of fine amount additional R.I. for 04 months.

¶17

2

¶18

Brief facts of the case are that on 10.09.2006 the Inspector, in charge of the Vishrampur Police Station received secret information that a person was transporting ganja illegally on a cycle. The said information was recorded in the Rojnamcha (police diary) and informed the Superintendent of Police, Surajpur. Thereafter the police arrived at the spot and there they found the accused, who was stopped and inquired. A notice under Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act was served upon the appellant and a search was made, on being search two separate packets of ganja weighing 02 kg 150 grans of Ganja recovered from the possession of the present appellant. Samples of 25 grams of ganja was separated from each packet. The contraband as well as the sample was sealed and the appellant and the contraband were taken to the police station. After due procedure and investigation charge sheet was filed against the present appellant.

¶19

So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 07 witnesses and 27 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.

¶20

After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.03.2007, 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 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

¶22

3

¶23

year 2006, and thereby more than 18 years have rolled by since then. The appellant has already remained in jail for about 07 months and 03 days, and no useful 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 Ramnaresh Gupta (PW-2), Sunil Rana (PW-5), Sitaram (PW-6), R.K. Shukla (PW-7),s 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-24. This Court does not see any illegality in the findings recorded by the trial Court as regards conviction of the appellant under Section 20(b)-ii(b) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.

¶27

In the instant case, the appellant has already remained in jail for about 07 months and 03 days, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the offence was committed in the year 2006 i.e. about more than 18 years ago and at present the appellant is aged about more than 65 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 while keeping the fine amount with default stipulation as imposed

¶28

4

¶29

by the Trial Court intact.

¶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, his jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him i.e., 07 months 03 days instead of R.I. for 02 years. However, the fine amount of Rs. 10,000/- with default stipulation imposed by the Trial Court shall remain intact.

¶31

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.

¶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

Sourabh P.

Banarsi Das v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Banarsi Das 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

Rajesh Kumar @ Bhopali Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajneesh Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Deleted (Lakhan) Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Santosh @ Bhurwa Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sanjay Gupta Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vikas Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh