Rupa Pangi Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Challenge in this criminal appeal is to impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 30.06.2016 passed by learned Special Judge, (NDPS), Raipur, (CG) in Special Case No.905/2015, whereby the appellant stands convicted and sentence as under:

¶16

2

¶17

Conviction	Sentence
Under Section 20(ii) (B) of the NDPS Act.	Rigorous imprisonment for 02 years & fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine 03 months additional RI.

¶18

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 08.07.2015, SubInspector L.S. Rajput, Police Station GRP, Raipur, received secret information from an informer that two persons were in possession of narcotic substance ganja , kept in a pitthu bag and a stickhandled bag and were sitting near the cloak room on Platform No. 1 of Raipur Railway Station, waiting for a train going from Raipur towards Delhi. Upon receipt of the said information, the Police reached on spot, intercepted the appellant/accused and during investigation recovered 05 Kg illicit contraband (Ganga) from his possession, which was kept by him in his bag. On the basis of seizure, accused-appellant was arrested under the NDPS Act. After completion of other necessary formalities, the police returned to the Police Station and deposited the contraband in the Malkhana and lodged FIR against the appellant.

¶19

After completion of investigation, charge-sheet/challan was filed against the appellant and based upon which trial Court framed the charges against him.

¶20

In order to prove guilt of appellant, prosecution examined total 08 witnesses and their statements were recorded. However, no defence witnesses was examined. Statement of appellant

¶21

3

¶22

(accused) was recorded under Section 313 CrPC in which he pleaded innocence and false implication.

¶23

After completion of trial, trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in paragraph -1 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.

¶24

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he is not pressing this appeal on merits and confining his arguments to the quantum of sentence only. He contended that quantity of contraband ganja seized from the appellant is an intermediate quantity. Maximum jail sentence awarded to the appellant is of 02 years and he has already served about 01 year of jail sentence. Appellant is not having any previous criminal incident, hence, it is prayed that sentence awarded to appellant be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶25

On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposing the prayer of learned counsel for appellant, would submit that the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant and therefore, the impugned judgment does not call for any interference.

¶26

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court including the impugned judgment.

¶27

Though learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged conviction of appellant and restricted her prayer only with regard to reduction of sentence as undergone, but still this Court deems it appropriate to examine the impugned judgment of the Court

¶28

4

¶29

below. This Court has meticulously perused impugned judgment and evidence on record.

¶30

Perusal of impugned judgment reveals that trial Court after elaborately considering evidence of each individual material witness, has observed that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against appellant. Learned trial Court has also discussed about the compliance of mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act and held that all the mandatory provisions under the NDPS Act had been complied with and that being the position, this Court is the opinion that the trial Court has not committed any mistake in arriving at a conclusion that appellant is guilty for the aforementioned offence.

¶31

As regards quantum of sentence, considering the total quantity of contraband ganja seized from the appellant, ie, 05 kg, maximum jail sentence awarded to the appellant is of 02 years and he has already served about 01 year of jail sentence, he is not having any previous criminal incident in similar nature, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in sending the appellant to jail at this point of time for undergoing remaining period of sentence and ends of justice would be met if the sentence awarded to appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶32

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. Conviction of appellant under Section 20(ii)(B) of NDPS Act is hereby affirmed. Sentence

¶33

5

¶34

imposed upon the appellant under aforesaid Section is hereby modified and reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, fine amount imposed upon the appellant shall remain intact.

¶35

Record of trial Court alongwith copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary

¶36

action.

¶37

Sd/(Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge

¶38

J/-

Rupa Pangi v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rupa Pangi 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

Jyoti Kumar Verma Vs Union of India

Sheikh Soheb @ Papu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Tushar Majumdar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ishwar Lal Noniya Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Nakul Sharma Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Mohit Kumar Sahu Vs Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd.