SWACHHAL CHANDRA ANANDA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since in both these Appeals arise out of one Criminal Trial followed by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dtd. 5/3/2003 which have been called in question in those Appeals; those were taken up for hearing together for their disposal by this common judgment.

(2.) These Appellants of both the Appeals faced the trial by the learned Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Berhampur in G.R. Case No.01 of 2002 (N) (T.R. Case No.01 of 2002) for commission of offence under Sec. -20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, called as 'the NDPS Act'). The Trial Court on analysis of the evidence let in by the prosecution and their evaluation has held the Appellant- Swachhal to be guilty for commission of offence under Sec. - 20(b) of the NDPS Act for being in possession of 6.50 Kgs. of ganja, whereas the Appellant-Jaya Raj Singh has been held guilty for committing the said offence for being in possession of 13 Kgs. of ganja.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Appellants from the beginning instead of questioning the finding of guilt against the accused persons as has been returned by the Trial Corut on merit confined his submission to the question of sentence. According to him, as provided in Sec. -2-(ii)(b) of the NDPS Act as it stood at the time of relevant seizure since the quantity of ganja falls within the ambit of middle quantity; "the sentence is for rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years and fine which may extend of Rs.1,00,000.00". He submitted that these Appellants having been taken to custody on 22/1/2002, it was only during pendency of the Appeal on 11/9/2006, the order having been passed for their release on bail they were released. Thus, it is seen that they have remained in custody for more than four and half years. He, therefore, submitted that at this distance of time, when the Appellants have undergone mental agony of a criminal trial for about 22 years, the sentence of imprisonment of the Appellants, if is reduced to the period undergone by appropriately reducing the fine, the same would be in the interest of justice especially when no such report is being placed that these Appellants after being released on bail have further indulged themselves in carrying out similar activity.