THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.70 of 2009 02-12-2014 BETWEEN:
Kadarakunta Obanna AND …..Appellant/accused 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.70 of 2009 JUDGMENT:
The Criminal Appeal is preferred by the appellant/accused challenging the Judgment, dated 23.01.2009, in S.C. No.519 of 2004 passed by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Anantapur, whereby the learned Judge found the appellant/accused guilty for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act) and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only), in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months.
The case of the prosecution is as follows:-
That on 14.12.2003, when P.W.3, Excise Inspector, along with the staff, went to the house of the accused on prior information and secured mediators and conducted house search after issuing search proceedings on the accused. In the course of search, they found one bag and examined the bag and found it contained 12 kgs of ganja. He collected some dry ganja as sample for chemical analysis. He sealed them and labeled them. He arrested the accused under the cover of panchanama and that a case was registered. The analyst gave opinion that sample is ganja. Therefore, he seized the contraband. A case was registered and the police filed charge sheet against the appellant/accused under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act.
To prove the guilt of the accused, P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.9 and M.Os.1 and 2 were marked on behalf of the prosecution. No oral evidence 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 20(b)(ii) (B) of the NDPS Act and convicted and sentenced him as stated above. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred by appellant/accused.
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 appellant/accused confines his argument with regard to quantum of sentence, and submits that as the appellant/accused is the only breadwinner in his family and has to lookafter his family, 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 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 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 partly allowed. Consequently, the miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this appeal, shall stand closed.
JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 02.12.2014 pln