THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1759 of 2007 25-07-2014 BETWEEN:
Anchula Raju And another ....Appellants/acc AND State of Andhra Pradesh by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad For the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh.
…..Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENT:
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1759 of 2007 JUDGMENT:
The Criminal Appeal is preferred by the appellants/accused challenging the Judgment, dated 29.11.2007, in NDPS S.C. No.1 of 2007 passed by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool, whereby the learned Judge found the appellants/accused guilty for the offence under Section 20(b) (ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only), in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months.
The case of the prosecution is as follows:-
That on 23.08.2006 at about 7.30 p.m., P.W.2, Sub Inspector of Police, along with his staff and P.W.1, Mandal Revenue Officer, reached agricultural market yard check post situated near Atmakur Bus Stand, Nandhyal. At that time the accused were coming on motorcycle in high speed and on seeing the police, they tried to run away. On suspicion P.W.2 with the assistance of his staff chased and caught hold of them. On enquiry, A.1 and A.2 revealed their names and addresses and confessed that they purchased 3 kgs of ganja and transporting the same to Nellore to sell at higher prices. P.W.2 seized two bags containing ganja from the accused in the presence of mediator, P.W.1. Sample of ganja was sent for chemical examination and after receipt of the chemical examination report, the police filed charge sheet against the appellants/A.1 and A.2 for the offence under Section 20 of the NDPS Act.
To prove the guilt of the accused, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.4 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 found the appellants/A.1 and A.2 guilty for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii) (B) of the NDPS Act and convicted and sentenced them as stated above. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred by him.
Heard and perused the material available on record.
After evaluating and examining the material available on record and considering the submissions of the learned counsel, 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 appellants/A.1 and A.2 confines his argument with regard to quantum of sentence, and submits that as the appellants/A.1 and A.2 are the only breadwinners in their respective families and they are the first offenders and they have to lookafter their children, lenient view may be taken by this Court while imposing sentence of imprisonment.
Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants/A.1 and A.2 and the nature of offence, and also in view of long lapse of time, this Court is inclined to take a lenient view.
In the result, the conviction recorded by the trial Court against the appellants/A.1 and A.2 for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act is hereby confirmed. However, this Court, taking a lenient view, modifies and reduces the sentence of imprisonment to the period, which the appellants/A.1 and A.2 have already undergone. The sentence of fine and default condition, imposed by the Court below, is not interfered with.
Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. Consequently, the miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this appeal, shall stand closed.
JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 25.07.2014 pln