1 2025:CGHC:10128 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 803 of 20 10 • Smt. Kanta W/o Shri Vinay Ramtake aged about 45 years, R/o Village – Labour Colony Lalbaag, District – Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus • State of Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant : Ms. Uma Tiwari, Adv. For Respondent/State : Mr. Arvind Dubey, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 28 / 02 /202 5 1 The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.09.2010 passed by the learned Special Sessions Judge (NDPS Act), Jagdalpur (C.G.), in Special Case No. 11/2010 whereby the learned Special Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under : Conviction Sentence U/s 20 (b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act Rigorous imprisonment for 3 years with fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.03.03 10:35:35 +0530 2 payment of fine amount additional S.I. for 3 months. 2 Brief facts of the case are that on 22.01.2010 at about 5:25 a.m., Assistant Sub-Inspector K.L. Chandrakar (PW-6) received information by the informant that the appellant was about to go towards Jagdalpur having contraband like ganja in her black colour bag, the concerning police officer along with his subordinate went to the spot and after compliance of the mandatory provisions of the Act seized 11.50 Kg ganja from the possession of the appellant. After due procedure and investigation charge sheet was filed against the present appellant. 3 So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 8 witnesses and exhibited 34 documents. The statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which she denied the circumstances appearing against her and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. 4 After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.09.2010, learned Special Judge has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal. 5 Learned counsel for the appellant submits he is not pressing the appeal so far as it relates to the conviction part of the judgment and would confine his argument to the sentence part thereof only. According to him, the incident is said to have taken place in the year 2010, and thereby more than 14 years have rolled by since then. The appellant is a lady aged about 59 years and has already remained in jail for about 1 year, 5 months and 7 days, and 3 no useful purpose would be served in again sending her to jail, therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate if the sentence imposed upon her may be reduced to the period already undergone by her. 6 Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supporting the impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant. 7 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record including the impugned judgment. 8 Having gone through the material on record and the evidence of the witnesses Hafiz Ahmad (PW-1), Nemichand Dewangan (PW-2), Sukal Singh Gawade (PW-3), Vijay Kumar Mishra (PW-4), Budhram (PW-5), K.L. Chandrakar (PW-6), Smt. Swarnlata Minj (PW-7) and Tarun Patel (PW- 8), establish the involvement of the accused/appellant in the crime in question beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, considering the oral and documentary evidence on record the seizure of Contraband Ganja from the possession of the accused /appellant which was subsequently found to be Ganja as per FSL report vide Ex. P-32. This Court does not see any illegality in the findings recorded by the trial Court as regards conviction of the appellant under Section 20(b) (ii)(B) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. 9 In the instant case, the appellant has already remained in jail for about 1 year, 5 months and 7 days, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the offence was committed in the year 2010 i.e. about more than 14 years ago and at present the appellant is aged about 59 years old lady, this court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be served if she is sentenced to the period already undergone by her by enhancing the fine amount imposed by the trial Court. 4 10 In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. While maintaining the conviction of the appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, her jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him i.e., 1 year, 5 months and 7 days instead of R.I. for 03 years. However, the fine of Rs. 1000/- is hereby enhanced to Rs. 5,000/-. The appellant shall pay the enhanced/imposed fine amount of Rs. 5,000/- failing which she shall be liable to undergo R.I. for 2 months. Fine amount, if any, deposited by the appellant shall be adjusted. 11 The appellant is on bail. Her bail bonds shall continue for a further period of 6 months as per requirement of Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. 12 Record of the trial Court along with copy of this judgment be sent forthwith for compliance and necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE H.L. Sahu