Chattisgarh High Court
Janki Bai vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 12 August, 2021
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRA No. 357 of 2007
Janki Bai, W/o Binod Kumar, Aged About 36 Years, R/o
Vivekanand Bard, behind Narendra Medical Store, Mungeli, P.O.
Mungeli, District- Bilaspur (C.G.).
---- Appellant
Versus
The State of Chhattisgarh, Through : P.S. Mungeli, District-
Bilaspur C.G.
---- Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Vikash Kumar Pandey, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Mr. Ishwar Jaiswal, P.L.
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey
Order On Board by virtual hearing
12.08.2021
1. Heard.
2. This appeal is preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment dated 25.04.2007
passed by Special Judge (NDPS Act), Bilaspur (C.G.) in Special Case
No. 28/2006, whereby the said court has convicted the appellant for
commission of offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of Narcotic Drugs &
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and sentenced him to undergo RI
for 4 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of payment further
R.I. for 3 months.
3. As per case of the prosecution, on 08.09.2006, information was
received by Inspector- Pramod Naidu (PW-4) posted at Police Outpost-
Mungeli regarding illegal possession of contraband article ganja by the
appellant. On the basis of secret information, police personnel
intercepted and found the appellant in possession of contraband ganja
which was weighed and it was found to be 13 KG. The matter was
investigated, charge-sheet was filed and after completion of trial, the
appellant has been convicted and sentenced as mentioned above.
4. Leaned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial court has
erred in accepting the uncorroborated testimony of the Investigating
Officer. He further submits that the independent witnesses Kamal
Kumar (PW-1) & Dileshwar Das (PW-2) have not supported the
prosecution case. The trial court has not evaluated the evidence
properly, therefore, the finding arrived at by the trial court is liable to be
set aside.
5. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the finding arrived
at by the trial court is based on proper appreciation of evidence and,
therefore, is not liable to be interfered with.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record including the impugned judgment.
7. From evidence of Inspector- Pramod Naidu (PW-4), it is
established that upon receiving the information and after complying
with all the legal formalities, he intercepted and seized two polythene
packets and weighed, it was found to be 13 KG. Spot-map was
prepared vide Ex.P/13. The seized article was handed over to Head-
Constable- Jogiram (PW-5) who was in-charge of Malkhana for safe
custody. Thereafter, the seized article was sent for examination and
test of ganja was found positive which is supported by report of State
Forensic Science Laboratory (Ex. P/24). In view of the above, there is
nothing on record to say that any provision of the Act, 1985 was flouted
with, therefore, the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant is
not sustainable.
8. The act of the appellant falls within mischief of Section 20(b)(ii)
(B) of the Act, 1985 for which the trial court convicted the appellant and
his conviction is hereby affirmed.
9. As regards sentence, keeping in view the facts that incident is
said to have taken place in the year 2006, and thereby nearly 15 years
have rolled by since then. The quantity of seized contraband article is
less than the commercial quantity. The appellant has already remained
in jail for about 11 months and 11 days, therefore, I am of the opinion
that ends of justice would be served, if her sentence is reduced to the
period already undergone by her.
10. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed.
Sd/-
(Rajani Dubey)
JUDGE
R/-
