Orissa High Court
Swachhal Chandra vs State Of Orissa on 20 June, 2024
Author: D. Dash
Bench: D. Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.128 of 2003
&
CRLA No.165 of 2003
In the matter of the Appeals under Section-374 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 and from the judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 5th March 2003 passed by the
learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Berhampur in G.R. Case
No.01 of 2002 (N) (T.R. Case No.01 of 2002).
----
CRLA No.128 of 2003
Swachhal Chandra ..... Appellant
Ananda
-versus-
State of Orissa ..... Respondent
CRLA No.165 of 2003
Jaya Raj Singh ..... Appellant
-versus-
State of Orissa ..... Respondent
Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical Mode:
=========================================================
For Appellants - Mr. D. Nayak,
Senior Advocate.
For Respondent - Mr. S.N. Das,
Additional Standing Counsel.
(In CRLA No.128 & 165 of 2003)
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE D. DASH
DATE OF HEARING :21.05.2024: DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20.06.2024
CRLA NOs.128 & 165 OF 2003
D.Dash, J. Since in both these Appeals arise out of one Criminal Trial
followed by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence
dated 5th March 2003 which have been called in question in those
Appeals; those were taken up for hearing together for their
disposal by this common judgment.
2. These Appellants of both the Appeals faced the trial by the
learned Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Berhampur in
G.R. Case No.01 of 2002 (N) (T.R. Case No.01 of 2002) for
commission of offence under section-20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs
and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, called as 'the
NDPS Act'). The Trial Court on analysis of the evidence let in by
the prosecution and their evaluation has held the Appellant-
Swachhal to be guilty for commission of offence under section-
20(b) of the NDPS Act for being in possession of 6.50 Kgs. of
ganja, whereas the Appellant-Jaya Raj Singh has been held guilty
for committing the said offence for being in possession of 13 Kgs.
of ganja.
Accordingly, the Appellant-Swachhal has been sentenced
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years and
pay fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for six months and the Appellant-Jaya Raj Singh
has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of 10 years and pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- in default to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years.
CRLA NOs.125 & 165 OF 2003
3. Learned Counsel for the Appellants from the beginning
instead of questioning the finding of guilt against the accused
persons as has been returned by the Trial Corut on merit
confined his submission to the question of sentence. According
to him, as provided in section-2-(ii)(b) of the NDPS Act as it
stood at the time of relevant seizure since the quantity of ganja
falls within the ambit of middle quantity; "the sentence is for
rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years
and fine which may extend of Rs.1,00,000/-". He submitted that
these Appellants having been taken to custody on 22.01.2002, it
was only during pendency of the Appeal on 11.09.2006, the order
having been passed for their release on bail they were released.
Thus, it is seen that they have remained in custody for more than
four and half years. He, therefore, submitted that at this distance
of time, when the Appellants have undergone mental agony of a
criminal trial for about 22 years, the sentence of imprisonment of
the Appellants, if is reduced to the period undergone by
appropriately reducing the fine, the same would be in the
interest of justice especially when no such report is being placed
that these Appellants after being released on bail have further
indulged themselves in carrying out similar activity.
4. Learned Counsel for the Respondent-State however
submitted that the Trial Court has rightly fixed the quantum of
sentence of imprisonment and fine; taking all the relevant factors
CRLA NOs.125 & 165 OF 2003
into account especially the deleterious affect of user of such type
of contraband in the society.
5. Considering the submission made, the record being
perused, it is seen that the Appellant No.1 has been held guilty
for being in possession of 6.50 Kgs. of ganja, whereas other
Appellant namely, Jaya Raj Singh has been found guilty for
being in possession of 13 Kgs. of ganja. The quantity of ganja
seized from the possession of these Appellants although are
more than small quantity, yet lesser than commercial. Therefore,
the accused persons are liable to be punished for the sentence as
prescribed under section-20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. It is
further seen that these accused persons in the year 2003 were
around 25 years of age and now both have crossed 45. They hail
from rural background, and it is stated that they are wage
earners. No such report is forthcoming that these Appellants
being released on bail have again indulged themselves in
carrying out similar activities. The case being of the year 2002,
the Appellants have by now undergone the mental agony of
criminal trial for about 22 years.
6. Taking all these factors into account, this Court while
confirming the conviction of the Appellant for the offence under
section-20(b) (ii)(B) of the NDPS Act is of the considered view
that at this distance of time, the Appellants if are sentenced to
imprisonment for the period undergone and directed to pay fine
CRLA NOs.125 & 165 OF 2003
of Rs.5,000/- each in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for six months, the same would meet the ends of justice and
serve its ends.
7. In that view of the matter, these Appeals are allowed in
part; only as to the modification of sentence to the extent as
indicated above.
(D. Dash),
Judge.
Narayan
CRLA NOs.125 & 165 OF 2003
