HONOURABLE JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1250 of 2014
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under N.D.P.S. Act (I-Additional Sessions Judge), Khammam in S.C.No.7 of 2010 dated 07.10.2014, whereby the appellant/A-1 was found guilty of the offences punishable under Section 20 (b) and 8 (c) of the N.D.P.S. Act and accordingly convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of Ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months.
The accusation against the appellant/A-1 is that on 23.04.2010 while P.W.5, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Mothugudem Police Station, along with his staff conducting vehicle checking at Lakkavaram Junction, he intercepted a Commander Jeep bearing No.AP 5R 9712 and apprehended the appellant/A-1 and seized 100 kgs., of dry ganja packed in three gunny bags under a cover of panchanama.
The plea of the appellant/A-1 is one of total denial. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P1 to P11. After closure of evidence, the appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence 2 of the prosecution witnesses, to which he denied. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the appellant/A-1.
After considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Judge found the appellant/A-1 guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 20 (b) and 8 (c) of the N.D.P.S. Act and accordingly convicted and sentenced the accused as stated supra. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed.
I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant/A-1 as well as learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/complainant and gone through the oral and documentary evidence adduced on both sides. The trial Court has given sufficient and cogent reasons for passing the conviction against the appellant/A1. Learned Counsel for the appellant has also not shown any ground, which would discredit the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, no interference is warranted as far as conviction is concerned.
Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State also submitted that the appellant/A-1 had undergone the sentence of imprisonment for a period of more than six years as of now.
As seen from the record, the offence took place on 23.04.2010 and almost 11 years have passed and during this period, the appellant/A-1, who is aged 26 years, must have repented for what he did and that he had also undergone imprisonment for a period of 3 six years four months during investigation, trial and after conviction. In these circumstances and in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate to reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone by the appellant/A-1, while maintaining the sentence of fine.
In the aforesaid circumstances and in order to meet the ends of justice, it would suffice to reduce the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of ten years to that of the period already undergone by the appellant/A-1, while maintaining the sentence of fine amount.
With the above modification, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of ten years, imposed in S.C.No.7 of 2010 on the file of the Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under N.D.P.S. Act (I Additional Sessions Judge), Khammam, is reduced to that of the period already undergone by the appellant/A-1, while maintaining the sentence of fine imposed by the trial Court.
_____________________ JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI 28.04.2021 Gsn 4