THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.208 of 2014 23-04-2014 BETWEEN:
Abilash Vijayan …..AppellantAccused AND The Superintendent of Customs (Preventive), Hyderabad-II, Hyderabad, Represented by Special Public Prosecutor …..Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENT:
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.208 of 2014 JUDGMENT:
The Criminal Appeal is preferred by the appellant/accused challenging the Judgment, dated 29.01.2014, in S.C. No.22 of 2013 passed by the Court of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District cum Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad, at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad, whereby the learned Judge convicted the appellant/A.1 for the offence under Section 25A read with 9A and Section 28 read with 9A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, and accordingly sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years on each count and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) on each count, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months on each count.
The case of the prosecution is as follows:-
That on 02.11.2012, the officers of Customs, Air Intelligence Unit (AIU) were on their routine duty at Rajiv Gandhi International Airport, Hyderabad, at 10.45 p.m., and on suspicion, they checked the baggage of A.1 in the presence of mediators and found polythene packets in the false bottom of the bag. The samples were drawn and sent for chemical analysis to Central Revenue Laboratory, Chennai and the same was tested positive for Pseudo Ephedrine Hydrochloride, a controlled substance. Hence, the charge.
To prove the guilt of the accused, P.Ws.1 to 10 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.17 and M.Os.1 to 5 were marked on behalf of the prosecution.
No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court acquitted the appellant/A.1 accused for the offence under Section 9A read with 29 of NDPS Act. However, the Court below found the appellant/A.1 guilty for the offence under Sections 25A read with Section 9A and 28 read with Section 9A of the NDPS Act and convicted and sentenced him as stated above. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred by the appellant/A.1.
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/accused and the learned Public Prosecutor, and perused the records.
After evaluating and examining the material available on record and considering the respective submissions of the learned counsel for both parties, this Court is of the view that there are no special or adequate reasons, warranting interference by this Court with the Judgment passed by the trial Court.
At this stage, the learned counsel for the appellant/accused confines his argument with regard to quantum of sentence, and submits that the Court below has also accepted the plea of the appellant/A.1 that he was working under A.2, he was given Rs.10,000/- by A.2 and was asked to handover the said bag to a person in Malaysia. Learned Counsel further submits that ever since the date of apprehension of the appellant/A.1, due to his financial incapacity, A.1 has not moved any bail application and he is still in prison, and as such, a lenient view may be taken by this Court while imposing sentence of imprisonment.
Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant/A.1 and the nature of offence, and also in view of long lapse of time, and also as one of the main accused, i.e. A.2, on whose instructions A.1 was carrying contraband, was not arrested by the department and no steps were taken for procuring A.2, this Court is inclined to take a lenient view.
The conviction recorded against the appellant/accused by the Court of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District-cum-Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad, at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad, in S.C.No.22 of 2013, by Judgment dated 29.01.2014, for the offences under Sections 25A read with Section 9A and Section 28 read with Section 9A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, is hereby confirmed. However, the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the Court below is modified to that of the period, which the appellant/accused has already undergone. The sentence of fine and default condition, imposed by the Court below, is not interfered with.
The Criminal Appeal is accordingly disposed of. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, stand dismissed.
JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 23.04.2014 pln