Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1079 (RAJ)

Chhotu @ Gulam Mohd. v. State of Rajasthan

2009-04-21

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2009
JUDGMENT 1. - By filing instant criminal appeal under section 374 Cr.P.C., the accused appellant has challenged the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 31.3.2004 passed by Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Ajmer (for short 'the trial Court') passed in Criminal Case No. 17/03, whereby he convicted and sentenced the accused appellant for the offence under section 8/18 of the NDPS Act for a period of Seven Years RI and Rs. 3,000/- fine. In default of payment of fine the accused appellant shall further undergo one year RI. 2. Without going into merits of the case Mr. V.K. Mishra, counsel appearing on behalf of accused appellant has made a request to the Court that he is not challenging the conviction part of the judgment of the trial court but his simple request is before this Court that the accused appellant be given the benefit of remission under the provisions of Section 432 Cr.RC., as the accused appellant in the present case has been awarded total imprisonment of 7 years RI, out of which he has completed 5 years 10 months and 17 days in judicial lock up. 3. Mr. Peeyush Kumar, Public Prosecutor controverted the aforementioned submissions and submits that the trial court has passed the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence after considering all the material made available to him. Thus, no interference is required to be made in the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 31.3.2004 passed by the trial Court. 4. From a bare perusal of the facts of the case, statements of prosecution witnesses as also other facts of the case, in my considered view, the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 31.3.2004 passed by the trial Court needs no interference of this Court. 5. In the result, this criminal appeal is devoid of merits and stands dismissed. The judgment of conviction and sentence dated 31.3.2004 passed by the Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Ajmer is affirmed. If the accused appellant is entitled for the benefit of remission under the provisions of Section 432 Cr.P.C. or any other Code, for the offence committed by him, then same shall be given to him in accordance with law.Appeal Dismissed. *******