THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.747 of 2007 24-01-2014 BETWEEN:
Challagundla Ramesh …..Appellant AND The State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.
…..Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENT:
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.747 of 2007 JUDGMENT:
The Criminal Appeal is preferred by the appellant/accused challenging the Judgment, dated 21.06.2007, in S.C. No.12 of 2005 passed by the Hon’ble Special Judge for trial of cases under the NDPS.Act-cum-I Additional Sessions Judge, Khammam.
The case of the prosecution is as follows:-
That on 25.02.2005, on information about cultivation of ganja by the accused in his land in between chilli plants, P.W.4 along with his staff and Panchayat Secretary, P.W.1 and Village Secretary, P.W.2 raided the land of accused and found 36 ganja plants. He collected some leaves for chemical analysis, and sent the same for chemical examination, and in that chemical examination, it was found that the plants are ganja plants. After completion of the investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the accused under Section 8(b) read with Section 20(a)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act).
To prove the guilt of the accused, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.4 and M.O.1 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 appellant/accused guilty for the offence under Section 8(b) read with Section 20(a)(i) of the NDPS Act and convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- (Rupees one hundred only), in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred by the appellant/accused.
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/accused and the learned Public Prosecutor.
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 as the accused is having wife, children and father, and also he is the only breadwinner in his family, 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/accused 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 appellant/accused herein for the offence Section 8(b) read with Section 20(a)(i) of the NDPS Act is hereby confirmed. However, this Court, taking a lenient view, reduces the sentence of imprisonment to the period, which the appellant/accused has already undergone. The sentence of fine stands confirmed.
Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. Consequently, the miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this appeal, shall stand closed.
JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 24.01.2014 pln