Partly allowed

Bhukya Kotiya, v. State of a.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor

Telangana HC26 Nov 2012CRLA/1802/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against conviction and sentence under the NDPS Act, the appellant confined arguments to sentence imposition, citing family responsibility and long stigma. The court confirmed conviction but reduced imprisonment to time already served, confirming the fine.

What did the court decide?

Conviction confirmed; imprisonment reduced to period undergone; fine confirmed.

Bhukya Kotiya, Vs State of a.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor — Narcotics (NDPS) | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

¶2

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1802 OF 2005

¶3

DATED 26^th NOVEMBER, 2012.

¶4

BETWEEN :

¶5

Bhukya Kotiya

¶6

.. Appellant-accused

¶7

and

¶8

The State of A.P.

¶9

..Respondent

¶10

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1802 OF 2005

¶11

JUDGMENT:

¶12

This Criminal Appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘Cr.P.C.’) is filed by the appellantaccused challenging the judgment, dated 24.11.2005, rendered in Sessions Case No.32 of 2001 by the Special Judge for Trial of Cases Under N.D.P.S. Act, 1985-cum-I Additional Sessions Judge, Khammam, wherein the appellant herein was convicted under Section 235 (2) Cr.P.C. and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the charge under Section 20 (a) (i) of NDPS Act for contravention of Section 8 (b) of NDPS Act.

¶13

Heard.

¶14

After arguing for sometime, the learned counsel for the appellant by not pressing the main prayer confined his arguments only to the extent of imposition of sentence and requested the Court to show some indulgence on the appellant in imposition of sentence.

¶15

In view of the said submission, this Court is of the view that merits of the Prosecution case and impugned judgment need not be adjudicated in this appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is

¶16

sole breadwinner of his family and has to lookafter the welfare of his family members.

¶17

Considering the above said submission and also the fact that the occurrence took place in the year 2001 and for all these years appellant suffered humiliation and also stigma in the society, this Court is of the view that a lenient view can be taken towards the appellant in imposition of sentence.

¶18

Hence, the conviction imposed by the trial Court is hereby confirmed. However, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the appellant is hereby reduced to that of the period already undergone by him in prison.

¶19

Remaining portion of the impugned judgment including fine amount shall stand confirmed.

¶20

With above modification, the Criminal Appeal is disposed of. Miscellaneous petitions filed in this appeal, if any, shall stand

¶21

closed.

¶22

________________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

¶23

Date : 26.11.2012 sur

Bhukya Kotiya, v. State of a.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhukya Kotiya, v. State of a.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.R.Sridhar, Vs The State rep.by its S.I., of Police, Yadamari P.S.,Chittoor

Uppu Venkata Rao, Vs The State o Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Public Prosecutor

Kotbi Komutsish, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, through Public Prosecutor

B.Mary Sara Danamma, Vs Naddi Venkateswaramma

Shaik Nabi Hussain, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Public Prosecutor

Tamtam Purnachandra Rao, (a 1) Vs State of a.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor