Kilo Ramachander, Visakhapatnam vs State Of Telangana, Rep. By P.P., ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 1389 Tel

              HONOURABLE JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI

               CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1250 of 2014

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is directed against the judgment of the

learned Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under N.D.P.S. Act

(I-Additional Sessions Judge), Khammam in S.C.No.7 of 2010 dated

07.10.2014, whereby the appellant/A-1 was found guilty of the

offences punishable under Section 20 (b) and 8 (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 three months.

The accusation against the appellant/A-1 is that on 23.04.2010

while P.W.5, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Mothugudem Police

Station, along with his staff conducting vehicle checking at

Lakkavaram Junction, he intercepted a Commander Jeep bearing

No.AP 5R 9712 and apprehended the appellant/A-1 and seized 100

kgs., of dry ganja packed in three gunny bags under a cover of

panchanama.

The plea of the appellant/A-1 is one of total denial. In order

to prove its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and got

marked Exs.P1 to P11. After closure of evidence, the appellant was

examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., with reference to the

incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence

of the prosecution witnesses, to which he denied. Neither oral nor

documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the appellant/A-1.

After considering the oral and documentary evidence on

record, the learned trial Judge found the appellant/A-1 guilty of the

offences punishable under Sections 20 (b) and 8 (c) of the N.D.P.S.

Act and accordingly convicted and sentenced the accused 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

given sufficient and cogent reasons for passing the conviction

against the appellant/A1. 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.

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State

also submitted that the appellant/A-1 had undergone the sentence

of imprisonment for a period of more than six years as of now.

As seen from the record, the offence took place on 23.04.2010

and almost 11 years have passed and during this period, the

appellant/A-1, who is aged 26 years, must have repented for what

he did and that he had also undergone imprisonment for a period of

six years four 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/A-1, 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.7 of 2010 on the file of the Special Sessions Judge

for Trial of Cases under N.D.P.S. Act (I Additional Sessions Judge),

Khammam, 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.

_____________________ JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI

28.04.2021 Gsn