Ashkar vs State Of Krala on 10 March, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 616 of 2010()


1. ASHKAR,AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.ASHRAF,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KRALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.ASHIK K.MOHAMMED ALI

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR

 Dated :10/03/2010

 O R D E R
                        V. RAMKUMAR, J.
                      = = = = = = = = = = = =
                      Crl.R.P.No.616 of 2010
                     = == = = = = = = = = = ==
                        Dated: 10.03. 2010

                            O R D E R

The revision petitioner who is the accused in C.C. No.838

of 2008 on the file of the J.F.C.M-II, Kochi, was on his pleading

guilty convicted for an offence punishable under Section20(b)(ii)

A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances

Act,1985 (NDPS Act for short).

2. The case of the prosecution was that on 30.3.2008 at

about 6.20 p.m the accused was found in possession of

contraband Ganja, the quantity of which was only small quantity.

3. On the accused pleading guilty to the charge framed

against him and read over to him, the learned Magistrate,

sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 5 months and to pay

a fine of Rs.3,000/- and on default to pay the fine to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for one week.

4. Eventhough the revision petitioner filed an appeal

before the Sessions Court, Ernakulam, as Crl.A.No.99 of 2009,

the learned Sessions Judge as per judgment dated 13.11.2009

dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction entered and

the sentence passed against the revision petitioner. Hence, this

Crl.R.P.No.616/10 -:2:-

Revision.

5. In as much as the petitioner had voluntarily pleaded

guilty of the offence, he is precluded from questioning the

conviction recorded against him by virtue of Section 375 Cr.P.C.

He is entitled only to pray for leniency in the sentence. Having

regard to the fact that the had pleaded guilty and the quantity

involved is only a small quantity, I am inclined to reduce the

sentence of rigorous imprisonment to three months. The

imprisonment is accordingly reduced to three months. The fine

portion of the sentence is not interfered with.

In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the

conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above.

V.Ramkumar, Judge.

sj