Ayub Khan vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 1647 Chatt

                                                                        NAFR

              HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                        CRA No. 24 of 2009

         Ayub Khan S/o Shri Jahur Khan, aged about 40 Years R/o
          Village Bachra Podi, Police Station Khadgawa, District Korea,
          Chhattisgarh.

                                                               ---- Appellant

                                       Versus

         State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police
          Station - Ramanujganj, District - Surguja, C.G.

                                                           ---- Respondent

  For Appellant                    :       Mr. B.P. Rao, Advocate.
  For State/Respondent             :       Mr. HS Ahluwalia, Dy. A.G.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel Judgment on Board

09.08.2021

1. The matter is heard through Video Conferencing.

2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated

03.01.2009 passed in Special Criminal Case No.02/2008 by

the learned Special Session Judge(N.D.P.S Act 1985),

Surguja, Ambikapur (C.G.) wherein, the Appellant has been

convicted for the offence punishable under Section 20 (b) (ii)

(B) of Narcotic Drugs Psychotropic Substances Act and

sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year and to pay fine of

Rs.10,000/-, with default stipulation.

3. According to the case of prosecution, on 12.01.2008 at

around 9:25 AM, Police of Police Station Ramanujganj got an

information from informant that the Appellant came near bus

stand for the purpose of selling Ganja. The Police has

recorded the above information in Rojnamcha Sanha and

reached the spot. On being searched of the Appellant, total 2

Kg. 100 gram of contraband Ganja has been seized from his

possession. On the basis of above, offence has been

registered against the Appellant. After completion of

investigation, charge-sheet was filed by the police. To robe

the Appellant in the crime-in-question prosecution has

examined as many as total 8 witnesses. In the statement of

the Appellant recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, the

Appellant pleaded his innocence and false implication in the

matter, however no defence witness was examined by the

Appellant.

4. After completion of trial, the Trial Court convicted and

sentenced the Appellant as mentioned in Para 02 of this

judgment. Hence, this appeal.

5. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that he

does not want to press this appeal on merits and confines his

argument to the sentence part only. He further submits that

the Appellant has already undergone about 60 days in jail, he

has no criminal antecedent and he is facing the lis since

2008. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to him may be

reduced to the period already undergone by him.

6. On the contrary, learned State Counsel opposed the appeal

and supported the impugned judgment.

7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

parties and perused the record minutely.

8. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case,

particularly considering the fact that the Appellant has already

undergone about 60 days in jail, he has no criminal

antecedent and he is facing the lis since 2008. I am of the

view that the ends of justice would be met if, while upholding

the conviction imposed upon the Appellant, the jail sentence

awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone

by him.

9. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of

the Appellant under Section 20 (b) (ii) (B) of Narcotic Drugs

Psychotropic Substances Act is affirmed and against the

conviction, he is sentenced to the period already undergone

by him. The fine sentence for the above offence is also

affirmed.

10. Records of the Court below be sent back along with a copy of

this order forthwith for information and necessary compliance.

Sd/-

(Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge Shubham