THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 951 OF 2010
JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Appeal is filed by the Appellant/Accused aggrieved by the conviction recorded by the Special Judge for trial of cases under N.D.P.S.Act-cum-I Additional Sessions Judge, Adilabad, dt.21.07.2010, in N.D.S.C.No.13 of 2009, convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of N.D.P.S.Act, 1985 and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and also a fine of Rs.500/-.
2. Heard both sides and perused the record.
3. Briefly, the case against the appellant/accused is that PW1 and PW2 who are Police Constables found this appellant carrying bags. Suspecting the contents of the bags, the appellant was stopped and it was found that the bags contain 4 ½ Kgs. of ganja. Having followed the procedure under Section N.D.P.S.Act, the said ganja was seized and samples were sent for the purpose of analysis and report. A report was received from the FSL, confirming the contraband seized was ganja.
4. The Police after investigation filed charge sheet for the said offence under the N.D.P.S.Act. Having framed the charge under 2 Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the N.D.P.S.Act, the learned Sessions Judge found that the appellant was in illegal possession of 4 ½ kgs. of ganja and convicted accordingly.
5. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/accused would submit that procedure under Section 42 and 50 of the N.D.P.S.Act was violated, for which reason the appellant/accused has to be acquitted. He further submits that police case has been filed against this appellant for statistical purpose and there are no independent witnesses who have stated anything against this appellant.
6. As seen from the evidence on record, the Police have followed due procedure under Section 50 of the N.D.P.S.Act and as such, there is no question of violation of procedure under Section 50 of the N.D.P.S.Act. For the reason of the appellant was holding these bags and the Police have found that it contained ganja, proceedings were initiated before PW5-Gazetted Officer.
7. The quantity seized from the appellant is 4 ½ Kgs. which is less than commercial quantity and the appellant was aged 35 years at the time of incident which is nearly 15 years ago. Admittedly, he has dependents to lookafter in the family and there are no other criminal cases that the appellant is involved in. 3
8. Keeping in view the time and also there being no questionable antecedents, the sentence of imprisonment can be reduced to the period already undergone.
9. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed reducing the sentence of imprisonment of the appellant to the period already undergone.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________ K.SURENDER, J Dt.:07.11.2022 tk 4 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 951 OF 2010 Dt. 07.11.2022 tk