CRLA/161/2007 of Sadaqat Hussain, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, on 30 December 2013

JUDGMENT:

The Criminal Appeal is preferred by the appellant/A.2challenging the Judgment, dated 29.11.2006, in S.C. No.400 of 2002passed by the Hon’ble I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge,Hyderabad, whereby the learned trial Judge found the A.1 and A.2guilty for the offence under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii) ofthe Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPSAct) and accordingly convicted and sentenced the A.2 to undergoRigorous Imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay a fine ofRs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only), in default, to undergosimple imprisonment for a period of one year.

The case of the prosecution is as follows:- That on 09.08.2002, at 09.30 hours, on reliable information thatA.1 was selling charas, a narcotic drug, and he was in possession ofthe same at this residence and that A.2 belonging to the State of UttarPradesh was coming to the house of A.1 to handover charas, P.W.1,the Inspector of Police, along with his staff and mediators proceeded tothe house of accused No.1 and watching the house. Then, theaccused No.2 with a bag reached the house of accused No.1. Thenthe raid party entered the house of accused No.1, and on interrogation,A.1 and A.2 revealed their identity. The police have seized the charasfrom the possession of A.1 and A.2 in the presence of the mediatorsunder the cover of panchanama. A.1 and A.2 have confessed that theyare selling charas. Samples of charas was sent for chemicalexamination and after receipt of the chemical examination report, thepolice filed charge sheet against the A.1 and A.2 for the offence under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(i) of the NDPS Act.

To prove the guilt of the accused, P.Ws.1 to 7 were examinedand Exs.P.1 to P.10 and M.Os.1 to 7 were marked on behalf of theprosecution. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalfof the accused.

On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trialCourt found the appellant/A.1 and A.2 guilty for the offence underSection 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(i) of the NDPS Act andaccordingly, convicted and sentenced the appellant/A.2 as statedabove. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred by theappellant/A.2.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/A.2 and the learnedPublic Prosecutor.

After evaluating and examining the material available on recordand considering the respective submissions of the learned counsel forboth parties, this Court is of the view that there are no special oradequate reasons, warranting interference by this Court with theJudgment passed by the trial Court.

At this stage, the learned counsel for the appellant/A.2 confineshis argument with regard to quantum of sentence, and submits that theA.2 is having wife and five children and he is the only breadwinner inhis family, and as such, a lenient view may be taken by this Courtwhile imposing sentence of imprisonment against the appellant/A.2.

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel forthe appellant/A.2 and the nature of offence, and also in view of longlapse of time, this Court is inclined to take a lenient view.

In the result, the conviction recorded by the trial Court againstthe appellant/A.2 for the offence Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(i)of the NDPS Act is hereby confirmed. However, this Court, taking alenient view, reduces and modifies the sentence of imprisonment tothe period, which the appellant/A.2 has already undergone. The sentence of fine stands confirmed.

Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.Consequently, the miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in thisappeal, shall stand closed.

30.12.2013pln

_____________________

Conclusion

JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO