Sanjay Gupta Vs State of Chhattisgarh

The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.01.2007 passed by the learned Special Judge, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.), in Special Criminal Case No. 06/2002 whereby the learned Special Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under :

¶16

Conviction Sentence U/s 20(b) of R.I. for 05 years.

¶17

Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.02.18 14:11:08 +0530

¶18

2

¶19

N.D.P.S. Act, 1985

¶20

Brief facts of the case are that on 14.03.2002 at about 10:25 a.m., Police Officer Hardeep Singh received information by the informant that the appellant going to sale the contraband article ganja, the concerning police officer along with his subordinate went on spot and after compliance of the mandatory provisions of the Act seized 1.500 Kg ganja from the possession of the appellant. After due procedure and investigation charge sheet was filed against the present appellant.

¶21

So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 06 witnesses and 25 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.

¶22

After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.01.2007, learned Special Judge has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal.

¶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 2002,

¶24

3

¶25

and thereby more than 22 years have rolled by since then. The appellant has already remained in jail for about 05 months and 17 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.

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

Having gone through the material on record and the evidence of the witnesses Mahesh Gupta (PW-2), Hardeep Singh (PW-3), Pancham Ram Pekra (PW-5), 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-20. 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) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.

¶29

In the instant case, the appellant has already remained in jail for about 05 months and 17 days, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the offence was committed in

¶30

4

¶31

the year 2002 i.e. about more than 22 years ago and at present the appellant is aged about more than 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 while keeping the fine amount with default stipulation as imposed by the Trial Court intact.

¶32

In the result the appeal is allowed in part . While maintaining the conviction of the appellant under Section 20(b) of NDPS Act, his jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him i.e., 05 months 17 days instead of R.I. for 05 years. However, a fine of Rs. 1000/- is imposed upon the appellant which shall be payable within a period of 60 days, failing which the appellant shall be liable to undergo R.I. 02 months.

¶33

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.

¶34

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

¶35

Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE

¶36

H.L. Sahu

Sanjay Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Gupta 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

Banarsi Das Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Santosh @ Bhurwa Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajesh Kumar @ Bhopali Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vikas Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

National Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Aasin Verma

Hemant Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh