HONOURABLE JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.920 of 2016
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in S.C.No.523 of 2014 dated 11.08.2016, whereby the appellant/A-1 was found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 8 (c) read with Section 22 (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 six months.
The accusation against the accused is that on 26.06.2014 at about 5.45 P.M. at house bearing No.13-1-391/1, Rajdhar Khan Pet, Mangalhat, Hyderabad, the appellant/A-1 along with A-2 were found in possession of 2,500 grams of Alprazolam, 20 toddy packets, one packet of white paste and one packet of baking soda, which are sedative substances along with ethyl alcohol, which is a psychotropic substance, for sale purpose without any valid licence or permit and thereby contravened the provisions of Section 8 (c) of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 and committed an offence punishable under Section 22 (C) of the said Act.
The plea of the appellant/A-1 is one of total denial and claimed to be tried. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P10 and M.Os.1 to 7. 2 After closure of evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, to which the accused denied. On behalf of the accused, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and got marked Exs.D1 to D7.
After considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, while acquitting A-2, the learned trial Judge found the appellant/A-1 guilty of the offence punishable under Section 8 (c) read with Section 22 (C) of the N.D.P.S. Act and accordingly convicted and sentenced the appellant/A-1 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 also given sufficient reasons for passing the conviction against the appellant/A-1. The 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, but with regard to the sentence, the learned Public Prosecutor filed a memo enclosing the Nominal Roll of the convict issued by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Cherlapalli. The said document would show that the appellant/A-1 was in jail from 11.08.2016 after conviction. Further, the appellant/A-1 was 3 arrested on 26.06.2014 and was remanded to judicial custody and has been in jail for a considerable period as an under trial prisoner. Further, the offence took place on 26.06.2014 and almost 7 years have passed and during this period, the appellant/A-1, who is aged 48 years, must have repented for what he did and that he had also undergone imprisonment for a period of five years ten 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/A1, 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.523 of 2014 on the file of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, 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 against the appellant/A-1.
____________________ JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI 28.04.2021 Gsn 4 5