Smt.Ramananma v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Criminal Appeal No.809 of 2002 Smt. Ramananma, wife of Tata Rao, Telgu, aged about 35 years, occupation Labour, resident of Village Parvatipuram Hal Pahar Ke Niche Jhopdi, Maniguda, District Maniguda, District Raigada (Orissa) ---- Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh through G.R.P. Police Station, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent For Appellant :

Shri Vivek Tripathi, Advocate For State/Respondent :

Shri Anil Pandey, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel Judgment on Board 4.11.2017 1.

The Appellant has been convicted under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (henceforth 'the Act of 1985') and sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for 4 years and fine of Rs.20,000/- with default stipulation.

2.

A certificate of incarceration sent by the Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Raipur would mention that the Appellant has undergone the entire jail sentence imposed upon her by the Trial Court and already released on 12.6.2007.

3.

I have heard Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant. He submitted that the Appellant has been falsely implicated in the case.

4.

Per contra, Learned Counsel appearing for the State supported the impugned judgment.

5.

I have perused the record to assess the correctness of the impugned judgment of conviction.

6.

The Appellant has allegedly been found in possession of 38.00 Kgs. of illicit Ganja. The case of the prosecution is based on the statement of Assistant Sub-Inspector R.K. Borchha (PW1). In his deposition, he has fully supported the case of the prosecution and is firmly stood by the contents of the FIR and relevant documents of the case. His statement is duly corroborated by Shiv Kumar Pandey (PW5), B. Shriniwas (PW4) and independent witness Prakash (PW2). Mandatory provisions of the Act of 1985 have also been duly complied with.

7.

Considering the material available on record, I do not find any merit in this appeal.

8.

Consequently, the appeal deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge Gopal