Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 34 (BOM)

Rakesh Kumar Sharma v. State of Goa

2001-01-19

D.D.SINHA

body2001
ORAL JUDGMENT D.D. Sinha, J. - Heard Mr. Singh for the Appellant and Mr. Bawande, the Public Prosecutor. 2. The Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 28-12-1999 passed by the Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Court. Mapusa, in Special Criminal Case No. 22 of 1999, where by the Appellant/ accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(i) of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 and is sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, to undergo another 1 month Simple Imprisonment. The set off is also granted in terms of Section 428 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 3. The facts which have given rise to the prosecution of the accused for the offence under the above referred Section of the N.D.P.S. Act are as follows: It is alleged that on 20th July, 1999 at 14.30 hours to 16.30 hours near Mohini Enterprise, Marcela, the accused was found in possession of 1 kg. of Ganga worth Rs. 10,000/- and thereby he committed the offence. On 26th October, 1999, the charge was framed against the accused to which the accused pleaded not guilty. The defence of the accused is that of total denial. The story put forth by the accused in his Statement under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code is that the accused has been falsely implicated by the police. The accused is totally innocent. 4. In the instant case the prosecution has examined in all four prosecution witnesses. i.e. P.W. 1 Mahesh Kaissare, a Junior Scientific Officer of the Food and Drugs Administration, P.W. 2 Manohar D. Joshi, a Scientific Assistant in the Crime Branch of the Police, P.W. 3 Nitin P. Dhond, who is a panch of the scene of offence and P.W. 4 in P.S.I. Patil. The accused also examined one Ravishankar R. Singh as D.W-1. The trial Court after appreciating the evidence adduced by the prosecution, came to the conclusion that the prosecution proved the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts for the offence charged under the N.D.P.S. Act and recorded the finding of conviction. 5. Mr. Singh, the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant argued only in respect of sentence awarded by the trial Court. It is contended that the Appellant/ accused at the relevant time was studying in Second year of Arts College at his native place at Uttar Pradesh. 5. Mr. Singh, the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant argued only in respect of sentence awarded by the trial Court. It is contended that the Appellant/ accused at the relevant time was studying in Second year of Arts College at his native place at Uttar Pradesh. The accused, in fact, had come to Goa in vacation and was residing with his friend here in Goa. It is submitted that the age of the accused at the relevant time was 21 years. The accused was not involved in any other criminal case except the present one. It is submitted that the accused has already undergone the substantial part of the sentence awarded by the trial Court. In the circumstances, it is prayed that the sentence may be modified and reduced to one and half year. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor, though supported the finding of conviction recorded by the trial Court does not have any specific objection with regard to the prayer made by the Appellant in respect of the sentence. 7. Since the arguments advanced by the Appellant are only in respect of the sentence awarded by the trial Court, it is not necessary for me to re-appreciate the evidence adduced by the prosecution on merits. 8. It is not disputed that the accused, at the relevant time was studying in second year of the college of Arts. It is also not in dispute that the age of the accused at the relevant time was 21 years. The accused does not have any past criminal record and has already served substantial part of the sentence. Taking into consideration all these aspects, the ends of justice could be met if the sentence awarded by the trial Court is modified. Hence the following Order: The finding of conviction under Section 20(b)(i) of the N.D.P.S. Act. 1985 is hereby confirmed. However, the sentence is modified and reduced to one and half year. The accused is entitled to set off under Section 428 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 9. The Appeal is partly allowed in the above terms. Appeal allowed partly.