Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1127 (MP)

Rajesh Gupta @ Tarzen v. State of M. P.

2012-11-06

N.K.GUPTA

body2012
Judgment N.K. Gupta, J. 1. This criminal appeal is preferred by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 3/8/2012 passed by the Special Judge under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, Katni in Special Case No. 84/2009, whereby the appellant was convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short "NDPS Act") and sentenced for four years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine amount, two months' RI was also directed. The prosecution's case, in short, is that on 26.11.2000 ASI D.R. Sharma (PW-9), who was posted at Police Station Kolgawan District Satna received an information that the appellant was present near the Motidah Dam having some Ganja in his bag. Shri Sharma adopted the appropriate procedure relating to the information etc. and with various witnesses he went to the spot. The appellant was found with a bag. On examination, it was found that the appellant had 1.500 kg Ganja with him. The sample was procured and the entire property was duly sealed. The sample was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. From its report, it was established that the seized property was Ganja. After due investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the Special Judge, Satna. 2. The appellant-accused abjured his guilt. He did not take any specific plea in the matter. However, one Dina Kewat (DW-1) was examined in defence. 3. The learned Special Judge after considering the evidence adduced by the parties convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(B) and sentenced him as mentioned above. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking at the facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that the appellant does not want to challenge his conviction directed by the trial Court, but he has prayed for reduction of the sentence. He remained in the custody for 13 months in all. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the maximum sentence of six months is prescribed for possession of one kilogram Ganja, and therefore if the Ganja slightly higher than the small quantity was seized from the appellant, then he should not have been sentenced in such harsh manner. He remained in the custody for 13 months in all. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the maximum sentence of six months is prescribed for possession of one kilogram Ganja, and therefore if the Ganja slightly higher than the small quantity was seized from the appellant, then he should not have been sentenced in such harsh manner. At the most he could be sentenced for one year's RI. There is no evidence to show that the appellant was the previous convict, and therefore a severe sentence could not be passed against him. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant are acceptable. The appellant was the first offender and only 1.5 kg Ganja was found with him. He remained in the custody for 13 months, therefore it is a fit case in which the jail sentence can be reduced to the period which the appellant has already undergone in the custody, but some fine may be enhanced. 6. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal of the present appellant is partly allowed. The conviction directed for the offence under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act is hereby maintained, but the jail sentence of the appellant is reduced to the period which he has already undergone in the custody by enhancing the fine amount from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 4,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo for one year's rigorous imprisonment 7. At present the bail order was passed in favour of the appellant on 3.10.2012, but it is not clear that whether the appellant has furnished the bail bonds or not. If he is in custody, a supersession warrant be issued against him so that he may be released, if remaining fine amount is deposited by him, and if he is on bail, then 60 days' time is granted to deposit the remaining fine amount. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court along with its record for information and compliance.