Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 289 (MP)

Madan Singh v. State of M. P.

2011-03-01

G.S.SOLANKI

body2011
JUDGMENT G.S. Solanki, J. 1. The appeal has been preferred by the Appellants under Section of Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved by judgment dated 12.8.2009 passed by Special Judge, NDPS Act, Shahdol in Special Case No. 31/2006 whereby the Appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 20BII of the NDPS Act, 1985 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years, fine of Rs. 50,000/- with default stipulation. 2. The prosecution's case in short is that on 8.11.2006, Shri C.L. Vishwakarma, Asst. Sub Inspect, P.S. GRP, Shahdol, received a secret information that Appellants are carrying contraband article Ganja. He recorded this information in Roznamcha Sana and after apprising his higher officials, prepared Panchnama in the presence of two panch witnesses and proceeded towards Platform, where accused/Appellants were sitting, they were apprised regarding their right to be searched in presence of a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate but they consented to be searched by C.L. Vishwakarma. He searched and seized 11 Kg and 50 gms contraband article from the possession of Madan Singh and prepared seizure memo (Ex.P-22) and 10 Kg and 50 gm contraband article from the possession of Mohd Shamim @ Gudda and prepared seizure memo (Ex. P-23). Two samples of 25-25 gm from the seized contraband article were prepared and sealed in presence of Panch witnesses and sent for chemical examination to FSL, Sagar through Supdt. Of Police, Railway, Jabalpur. Asst. Chemical Examiner, FSL, Sagar found Ganja in the samples, which were sent and opined as per Ex. P-45. 3. After usual investigation, Appellants were charge sheeted before Special Judge, Shahdol. They were charged under Section 20B(II)B of NDPS Act. 4. Appellants abjured the guilt and pleaded that they have been falsely implicated in the case. 5. After trial, on appraisal of evidence on record, learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the Appellant as mentioned hereinabove, hence this appeal. 6. Learned Counsel for the Appellants has not challenged the conviction of the Appellants. She has submitted that Appellants are in jail since 8.11.2006 (for the last approximately 4 years and 4 months), the ends of justice would be met if Appellants are sentenced for the period already undergone and fine amount is reduced. 7. Learned Counsel for the State has justified the findings recorded and supported the judgment passed by the trial Court. 8. I have perused the impugned judgment, evidence and other material on record. 7. Learned Counsel for the State has justified the findings recorded and supported the judgment passed by the trial Court. 8. I have perused the impugned judgment, evidence and other material on record. Conviction recorded by the trial Court has not been challenged by the counsel for the Appellants, hence there is no need to discuss with respect to conviction part recorded by the trial Court. Considering the quantity of contraband article (ganja) period of jail sentence already undergone by the Appellants, I am of the view that ends of justice would be met if Appellants are sentenced for the period already undergone and fine amount is reduced. The Appellants are in jail since 8.11.2006 (approx. 4 years and 4 months). They are sentenced for the period already undergone and the fine amount is reduced to Rs. 20,000/- by each of the Appellants. In default, the Appellants have to undergo S.I. for 3 months. 9. Thus, the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction of the Appellants under Section 20B(II) is hereby affirmed. Accused/Appellants are sentenced for a period already undergone i.e. approximately 4 years and 4 months and fine of Rs. 20,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, they have to undergo S.I. for further three months. The order regarding disposal of property passed by the trial Court is hereby affirmed.