CRLA/460/2007 of Endhur Naresh, Vs The State of A.P., on 31 December 2013

JUDGMENT:

1. This appeal is filed by the appellant-accused No.1 against the conviction andsentence imposed by the Special Judge under the NDPS Act-cum-I AdditionalSessions Judge, Adilabad, vide judgment dated 14.03.2007 in N.D.S.C.No.8 of2006.

2. The case of the prosecution is as follows:

On 21.12.2005 at about 1 p.m., on receipt of reliable information, the Sub-Inspector of police, Adilabad Town P.S., along with his constable rushed toShanthinagar near Abubakar Masjid, Adilabad and found two persons in possessionof two bags under suspicious circumstances. On enquiry, they revealed their namesand stated that they were transporting ganja to Madhya Pradesh from the villages ofAdilabad Mandal to sell it on higher prices. The Sub-Inspector of police afterfollowing necessary formalities seized 4 kgs of ganja from A1 and 3 kgs of ganjafrom A2. Then, the accused and the seized property were brought to the policestation and a case was registered against them. After completion of theinvestigation, charge sheet was filed.

3. The learned Special Judge framed a charge under Section 8 (c ) r/w 20(b) of theNDPS Act, against the accused , read over and explained to them, for which theypleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. During the course of trial, the prosecution got examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and gotExs.P1 to P6 besides M.Os.1 to 5 marked. No oral or documentary evidence wasadduced on behalf of the accused.

5. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Special Judge Court found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 8 (c) r/w 20(b)(i) of theNDPS Act. Hence, the learned Special Judge convicted and sentenced them toundergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each and to pay a fine ofRs.1,000/- each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months each forthe said offence. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant-A1 filed the present appeal.

6. Heard and perused the material available on record.

7. On a perusal of the material and the evidence on record, it is apparent that theevidence of P.Ws.1, 5 and 7 is very consistent and corroborative in all materialparticulars and there is no reason to disbelieve their evidence. Their evidencecoupled with Exs.P1 to P6 clearly establishes that the appellant-A1 was found inpossession of ganja. In view of the same, this Court is not inclined to interfere withthe conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Special Judge against theappellant-A1.

8. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the appellant-accused No.1 submitted thatthe appellant is the only breadwinner of his family and that he was in prison for aconsiderable period and therefore, a lenient view may be taken.

9. Considering the submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellant andthe time elapsed, this Court is inclined to reduce the sentence of imprisonment.

10. In the result, the conviction recorded by the learned Special Judge under theNDPS Act-cum-I Additional Sessions Judge, Adilabad in N.D.S.C. No.8 of 2006vide judgment dated 14.3.2007 against the appellant-A1 is hereby confirmed. Buthowever, the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the learned Special Judgeagainst the appellant-A1 is reduced to the period, which the appellant-accused No.1has already undergone, while maintaining the sentence of fine and the defaultcondition stipulated thereunder.

11. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. Consequently, the _________________

Justice Raja Elango

Dated: 31.12.2013

nn

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

Nn

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.460 OF 2007

31.12.2013