Adla Sudharshan Goud, Hyderabad ... vs The State Of Telangana, Rep Pp.,
2021 Latest Caselaw 1391 Tel

               HONOURABLE JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI

                CRIMINAL APPEAL No.920 of 2016

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is directed against the judgment of the

learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in S.C.No.523 of

2014 dated 11.08.2016, whereby the appellant/A-1 was found guilty

of the offence punishable under Section 8 (c) read with Section 22 (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 six months.

The accusation against the accused is that on 26.06.2014 at

about 5.45 P.M. at house bearing No.13-1-391/1, Rajdhar Khan Pet,

Mangalhat, Hyderabad, the appellant/A-1 along with A-2 were

found in possession of 2,500 grams of Alprazolam, 20 toddy packets,

one packet of white paste and one packet of baking soda, which are

sedative substances along with ethyl alcohol, which is a

psychotropic substance, for sale purpose without any valid licence

or permit and thereby contravened the provisions of Section 8 (c) of

the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 and committed an offence punishable under

Section 22 (C) of the said Act.

The plea of the appellant/A-1 is one of total denial and

claimed to be tried. In order to prove its case, the prosecution

examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P10 and M.Os.1 to 7.

After closure of evidence, the accused was examined under Section

313 Cr.P.C., with reference to the incriminating circumstances

appearing in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, to which the

accused denied. On behalf of the accused, D.Ws.1 and 2 were

examined and got marked Exs.D1 to D7.

After considering the oral and documentary evidence

available on record, while acquitting A-2, the learned trial Judge

found the appellant/A-1 guilty of the offence punishable under

Section 8 (c) read with Section 22 (C) of the N.D.P.S. Act and

accordingly convicted and sentenced the appellant/A-1 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

also given sufficient reasons for passing the conviction against the

appellant/A-1. The 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, but with regard to the sentence, the

learned Public Prosecutor filed a memo enclosing the Nominal Roll

of the convict issued by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Cherlapalli.

The said document would show that the appellant/A-1 was in jail

from 11.08.2016 after conviction. Further, the appellant/A-1 was

arrested on 26.06.2014 and was remanded to judicial custody and

has been in jail for a considerable period as an under trial prisoner.

Further, the offence took place on 26.06.2014 and almost 7 years have

passed and during this period, the appellant/A-1, who is aged 48

years, must have repented for what he did and that he had also

undergone imprisonment for a period of five years ten 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/A1, 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.523 of 2014 on the file of the Metropolitan

Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, 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 against the appellant/A-1.

____________________ JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI 28.04.2021 Gsn