Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1074 (PAT)

Faudi Mukhiya v. State Of Bihar

2007-07-05

CHANDRA MOHAN PRASAD

body2007
Judgment 1. This appeal is against the judgment dated 14th September 2004/15th September 2004 of the 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi passed in ST. No.8 of 2003/1 of 2004 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 20(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Act") and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 25,000/- (twenty-five thousand) and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. 2. As per the case of prosecution, 2 Kg. of Ganja wrapped in plastic and kept under Chauki in the house of the appellant was recovered and thus, the recovery was alleged from the possession of the appellant on 25th April 2002. The appellant was also apprehended at the spot. 3. As many as ten witnesses were examined by the prosecution. P.Ws. 1 & 2 were the seizure witnesses. P.Ws. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 were the members of the Police Patrolling Party which conducted the search and recovery P.W. 8 was the C.O. P.Ws. 9 & 10 were the Advocate Clerks who deposed during the trial. 4. During hearing, Mr. Shishir Kumar, Advocate for the appellant argued this appeal with the permission of Mr. Prasoon Sinha who has filed Vakalatnama and who is also present in Court. Mr. Shishir Kumar did not challenge this appeal, so far the conviction is concerned, but he challenged the quantum of sentence awarded to the appellant. He submitted that the recovery is of only 2 Kg. of Ganja which is very close to the small quantity i.e. 1 Kg. for which a sentence of only six months has been prescribed under Sec. 20(A) of the Act. Referring to the Table annexed with the Act Mr. Kumar pointed out that under Entry No. 55, 1 Kg. of Ganja has been shown as small quantity and 20 Kg. has been shown as commercial quantity. Further referring Section 20(B) of the Act, Mr. Kumar pointed out that in case the quantity of Ganja is greater than the small quantity but lesser than commercial quantity the sentence may go upto ten years and a fine upto Rupees one lac can be imposed. Mr. Kumar further argued that the recovered quantity of 2 Kg. of Ganja is close to the small quantity and it is far less than commercial quantity. Mr. Kumar further argued that the recovered quantity of 2 Kg. of Ganja is close to the small quantity and it is far less than commercial quantity. In such view of the matters, Mr. Kumar argued for reduction in the quantum of sentence awarded to the appellant. The conviction of the appellant is not challenged. 5. There is also evidence on record to suport the recovery. Hence, the conviction of the appellant under Sec. 20(B) of the Act is sustained. 6. So far the quantum of sentence is concerned, I feel that in the facts and circumstances of the case, a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for six months will meet the ends of justice. Therefore, the sentence is reduced to that extent and the appellant will stand convicted under Section 20(B) of the Act and be sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. 7. With the modification in the sentence, as above, this appeal is dismissed.