Ajay Kumar Sonwani Vs State of Chhattisgarh

1 The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.04.2007 passed by the learned Special Judge (Upper Sessions Judge, Ambikapur), DistrictSurguja (C.G.), in Special Criminal Case No. 08/2003 whereby the learned Special Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under :

¶16

Conviction	Sentence
U/s 21(A) of the Narcotics	S.I. for 04 months with fine of Rs.
Drugs and Psychotropic	2,000/-, in default ofpayment of

¶17

2

¶18

Substance Act, 1985. fine amount R.I. for 01 month.

¶19

2 The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 02.04.2003, the Police Officer at Vishrampur Police Station received information from the secret informant that Ajay Kumar Sonwani was making small packets of brown sugar in Mines Colony, Vishrampur and selling them. This information was recorded in the daily diary and 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 twenty-eight small paper packets containing brown powder weighing 2.210 gram were recovered from the possession of the present appellant. Thereafter, a case was registered against the accused under Section 21(A) of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985.

¶20

3 During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined as many as 07 witnesses and exhibited 21 documents. The statement of the 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

4 After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.04.2007, learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offence as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal.

¶22

5 Learned counsel appearing for the appellant 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 2003, and thereby about more than 21 years have

¶23

3

¶24

rolled by since then. At present, the appellant is aged about more than 41 years and the appellant has already remained in jail for about 01 month 24 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.

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

8 Having gone through the material available on record and the evidence of the witnesses S.C. Shukla (PW-1), Anand Ram Lohvanshi (PW-02), Kanhaiya Tiwari (PW-04) and Rajaram (PW07), 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 brow powder from the possession of the accused /appellant which was subsequently found to be brown sugar as per FSL report vide Ex. P-18,19. This Court does not see any illegality in the findings recorded by the trial Court as regards conviction of the appellant under Section 21(A) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

¶28

9 As regards sentence, keeping in view the facts that the incident had taken place on 02.04.2003 about more than 21 years ago and further considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the appellant has no previous criminal antecedents and has already remained in jail for about 01 month 24 days, 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.

¶29

10 In view of the above consideration, I do not feel it appropriate to

¶30

4

¶31

send back the appellant to jail. Hence, the appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him i.e., 01 month 24 days instead of suffering simple imprisonment for 04 months for the offence punishable under Section 21 (A) of NDPS Act, 1985. However, the fine amount of Rs. 2000/- with default stipulation imposed upon the appellant by the trial Court shall remain intact.

¶32

11 Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated above.

¶33

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

¶34

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

¶35

Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE

¶36

Sourabh P.

Ajay Kumar Sonwani v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Kumar Sonwani 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

Chhotelal Yadav and Anr. Vs State of Chattisgarh

Milan Prasad Kashyap Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ravishankar Vishwakarma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bisouha Ram Kurre Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rambilas Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sakir Ansari @ Chhotu Vs State of Chhattisgarh