Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1140 (RAJ)

Suresh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

2014-05-15

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2014
Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 9.3.2009 passed by Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Chhabara, District Baran in Sessions Case No. 37/2007, whereby the learned trial court convicted the appellants for the offence under Section 8/21 of Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 and sentenced each of them to undergo 15 years' RI with fine of Rs. 1,50,000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 1 year's SI. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 12.12.2006, PW 1 Jodhram SHO of Police Station, Chhipabarod, District Baran with Police Staff departed from Police Station, Chhipabarod, District Baran for petrolling and Nakabandi. When the police party was passing through Village Gordhanpura Bardawada and going to Kaliya Jagir, towards village Banskheda, on Aklera Road 3 persons were found sitting and as soon as the police party was seen by them, they rushed. They were found suspected and stopped surrounding them and interrogated thoroughly about their identity. The search was conducted, in which accused appellant Suresh Kumar was found in possession of 3 Kg. 500 gm. smack; accused appellant Sarfarj was found in possession of 3 Kh 500 gm. Smack; and accused appellant Shanker Lal was found in possession of 3 Kg. Smack. The accused appellants were arrested and FIR bearing No. 364/2006 came to be registered for the offence under Section 8/21 of NDPS Act. 3. After investigation, a charge sheet was submitted in the Court against the appellants for the offence under Section 8/21 of NDPS Act. The learned trial court framed charge against the appellants for the offence under Section 8/21 of NDPS Act. The appellants denied the charges and claimed for trial. The prosecution examined its witnesses and also produced documentary evidence. Thereafter the statement of accused appellants were recorded under Section 313 CrPC. The learned trial Court, after hearing the arguments of both the sides, convicted the accused appellants and sentenced them for the offence under Section 8/21 of NDPS Act vide judgment dated 9.3.2009 as indicated here-in-above. 4. Against the said judgment dated 9.3.2009, the appeal has been preferred by the appellants. 5. The learned trial Court, after hearing the arguments of both the sides, convicted the accused appellants and sentenced them for the offence under Section 8/21 of NDPS Act vide judgment dated 9.3.2009 as indicated here-in-above. 4. Against the said judgment dated 9.3.2009, the appeal has been preferred by the appellants. 5. Without going into the merits of the case, learned counsel for the appellants has contended that he is not challenging the conviction part of the judgment of the court below and he is also not requesting that the appellants should be released for the period already undergone by them in custody. The only request made by learned counsel for the appellants is that their sentence should be reduced from 15 years to 10 years on the ground that occurrence took place in the year 2006; accused appellants are not the habitual offenders; all the three appellants are agriculturists, they belong to respectable family; and they were young fellows at the time of committing the offence and it is the first offence of their life. 6. On the other hand, learned PP appearing for the State has opposed the same and contended that the trial court, after due discussion of the evidence of prosecution, in detail passed the judgment. He has further contended that more than commercial quantity of Smack has been recovered from the appellants, hence their sentence should not be reduced from 15 years to 10 years. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully considered the submissions made before me. 8. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this appeal is disposed of with the following directions:- (i) The conviction of the appellants, is maintained; (ii) Their sentence of 15 years, as awarded by the court below, is reduced to one year i.e. from 15 years to 14 years under Section 8/21 of NDPS Act; (iii) The fine of Rs. 1,50,000/-, as imposed by the court below upon each of the appellants is reduced to Rs. 1,00,000/-; and in default of payment of fine, each of the appellant shall further undergo six months Simple Imprisonment instead of one year S.I. Impugned judgment stands modified, as indicated hereinabove.