Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 599 (MP)

Bheekham Singh Vishwakarma v. State of M. P.

2011-05-12

M.A.SIDDIQUI

body2011
JUDGMENT : Learned counsel for appellants does not want to press the appeal of appellant no.1 Bheekham Singh who has already undergone sentence of three months R.I and has already been released. Appellant no.2 Laxmikant Tiwari is aggrieved by the judgment dated 10th August,2010, delivered by the then Special Judge (NDPS), Bhopal in Special Case No. 5/09 in which appellant no.2 has been convicted and sentenced for one year R.I. and fine of Rs.2,000/-under Section 8(C)read with Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for three months. Learned counsel for the appellant no.2 has not challenged the finding of conviction of the appellant but confined his arguments only on the point of sentence. So there is no need to consider the facts of the case. Even otherwise, from perusal of original record of Special Case No.5/09 by which appellant no.2 has been convicted and sentenced for having illegal possession of 1 kg.300 gms. Ganja on 14.03.09, it appears that all the mandatory provisions of the Act have been followed and there is no scope for any interference in the conviction of appellant. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that appellant no.2 Laxmikant Tiwari was in custody during trial from 14.03.09 to 9.4.09, that is, about 26 days, and he is in custody continuously from 10.08.10 till today. He submits that appellant has already suffered the jail sentence of more than nine months. Counsel submits that appellant has been punished R.I. for one year by the trial Court out of which he has already suffered imprisonment of more than nine months. So, he may be convicted and sentenced for the period already undergone by him. On the contrary, learned counsel for the State though opposes the prayer, but he also submits that appellant is continuously in jail since 10.08.10. Keeping in view the submissions made by the parties, in my opinion, the interest of justice would be served if the appellant is convicted and sentenced for the period already undergone by him as appellant Laxmikant Tiwari was found in illegal possession of just 300 gms. above the small quantity of Ganja. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed with respect to appellant no.2. The order of conviction passed by the trial Court is hereby maintained. above the small quantity of Ganja. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed with respect to appellant no.2. The order of conviction passed by the trial Court is hereby maintained. However, the jail sentence imposed on appellant no.2 Laxmikant Tiwari is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant. It is made clear that no interference is made in the fine amount imposed by the trial Court. Appellant no.2 is directed to deposit the fine amount within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. In case the fine amount is not deposited within the period aforesaid, appellant Laxmikant Tiwari to undergo R.I. for 3 months as ordered by the trial Court. The appellant is in jail, in case the fine amount is deposited by the appellant, he be released forthwith, if not required in any other offence.