Partly allowed

Gurram Koti Reddy, v. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Station House Officer

Telangana HC5 Jul 2013CRLA/496/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this appeal against a conviction and sentence for narcotic offenses under the NDPS Act, the High Court held that while the conviction was maintainable, the sentence of imprisonment was commuted to the period already undergone by the appellant due to the lapse of time, with the fine remaining intact.

What did the court decide?

Sentence of imprisonment reduced to the period already undergone; fine sentence maintained.

Gurram Koti Reddy, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

¶2

Crl.A.No.496 of 2006

¶3

JUDGMENT

¶4

This appeal is directed against the judgment,

¶5

dated 21.03.2006, passed by the learned Special Judge for Trial of Cases under NDPS Act-cum-II Additional Sessions Judge, Khammam in S.C.No.3 of 2005.

¶6

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 12.12.2004 at about 7.00 PM., while P.W.4-the Sub-Inspector of Police, III Town, Khammam and his staff were on patrolling duty near Women’s Degree College, Gandhi Chowk, Khammam, apprehended A1 and A2 on suspicion, and on enquiry, they confessed that they had purchased 2 Kgs of ganga @ Rs.500/-per kg at Korivi Village of Warangal District. After following the statutory provisions, he arrested the accused and registered a case in Cr.No.204 of 2004 under Section 20(b), 8(c) of N.D.P.S.Act, 1985. After completion of investigation, P.W.4 filed the charge sheet.

¶7

3. During trial, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.P1 to P3 and M.Os.1 and 2 were marked on behalf of the prosecution. No evidence was adduced and no document was marked on behalf of the defence.

¶8

4. On appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found both the accused guilty of the charge under

¶9

Section 20(b) of N.D.P.S.Act for contravention of provisions of Section 8(c) of said Act and thereby convicted and sentenced A1 to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two weeks and convicted and sentenced A2 to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year three months and nine days (i..e, his detention period) and to pay a fine of Rs.200/-in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one week. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant/A1 filed the present appeal.

¶10

5. Heard both sides and perused the material on record.

¶11

6. Learned Counsel for the appellant/A1 fairly conceded that this is not a fit case for interference, but having regard to the fact that the appellant has undergone imprisonment for a substantial period, a lenient view may be taken insofar as the sentence of imprisonment is concerned.

¶12

7. From the record, it appears that the appellant was in jail for a substantial period. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the nature of the offence committed by the appellant, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the judgment impugned. But however, in view of the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant/A1 has already undergone imprisonment for a considerable period and also the lapse of

¶13

9 years period from the date of occurrence, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on him by the trial Court is reduced to the

¶14

period already undergone, while maintaining the sentence of fine imposed by the said Court.

¶15

8. With the aforesaid modification, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. Miscellaneous Petitions filed in this appeal, if any, shall stand closed.

¶16

_______________ RAJA ELANGO, J

¶17

5^th July, 2013 sj

Gurram Koti Reddy, v. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Station House Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurram Koti Reddy, v. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Station House Officer

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

Kodi Mallaiah , Prem, Vs State of A.P.

Mudavath Venkataiah, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Mudavath Bhasya , Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Koppaka Sanjeevarao (A1) Vs The State of A.P.

K.Sampathkumar, Vs The State ,through S.H.O P.S., Ramadugum

Bezwada Gopi , Vs The State of A.P.