Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 315 (MP)

Bhuru v. State of M. P.

2011-03-08

G.S.SOLANKI

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. Learned Special Judge (Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985) {for short 'NDPS Act'}, Khandwa has passed the impugned judgment dated 8.9.2009 in Special Case No. 6/2009 whereby appellant has been convicted under section 8 read with section 20 (b) (ii) (b) of the Act and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 8 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, with default stipulations. 2. Being aggrieved appellant has preferred this appeal under section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. Prosecution story in short is that on 15.6.2009 at about 11.40 Mr. M.K. Raghuwanshi (PW 8), Station House Officer, Police Outpost, Boregaon, received a secrete information that appellant Bhuru S/o Najir Pinjara will go to Khandwa having contraband article 'ganja' with him. Mr. M.K. Raghuwanshi (PW 8) apprised his superior officers at Khandwa about aforesaid secrete information. He called the Panch witnesses and proceeded to the place which was informed in a secrete information and caught hold of appellant Bhuru S/o Nazir Pinjara. Appellant Bhuru is apprised to his right to be searched before Gazetted Officer or Magistrate and after taking his consent for search, a search was made and contraband articles 'ganja' of 1 Kilogram 980 gram was seized. At the same time, two samples of 25 gram each was prepared and sealed. Remaining article was also sealed. Sample was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Bhopal through Superintendent of Police Khandwa. Assistant Chemical Examiner found 'ganja' in sample sent, to him and sent his opinion as Ex. P/16. 4. After usual investigation, appellant was charge sheeted before the Special Judge, (NDPS Act), Khandwa, who framed the charge against the appellant under section 8/20 (b) (ii) (b) of NDPS Act. 5. Accused/appellant abjured the guilt, however, the Special Judge vide impugned judgment dated 8.9.2009 recorded conviction and sentenced as mentioned herein above. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he did not challenge the conviction recorded by the learned trial Court. He further submitted that appellant was in jail from 15.6.2009 to 30.7.2009 during trial and now he is in jail from 8.9.2009 till today (approximately more than 1 1/2 years). He further submitted that if the appellant be sentenced to the period of jail sentence already undergone and fine may be reduced to the tune of Rs. 20,000/-, end of justice would be met. He further submitted that if the appellant be sentenced to the period of jail sentence already undergone and fine may be reduced to the tune of Rs. 20,000/-, end of justice would be met. He placed reliance on the judgment of this Court dated 22.6.2010 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 2358/2009. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has supported the impugned judgment and finding of the trial Court. 8. I have perused the impugned judgment, evidence and other material on record and considering the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, the conviction recorded by the trial Court is hereby affirmed. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration the quantity of seized contraband article including the fact that the appellant is remained in custody about 1 1/2 years, interest of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to 1 1/2 years and amount of fine is reduced to Rs. 20,000/- with appropriate default stipulations. 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The impugned conviction is hereby affirmed. However, the terms of corresponding custodial sentence is reduced from Rs. 1,00,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- with the stipulation that in default of payment of fine, the appellant shall have to suffer RI for 6 months. 11. Appeal is partly allowed.