Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 2045 (RAJ)

Sher Singh @Shera v. State of Rajasthan

2015-12-08

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2015
JUDGMENT : Sandeep Mehta, J. By way of this appeal, the appellant has approached this Court being aggrieved of the judgment dated 27.10.2014 passed by learned Special Judge (NDPS Act Cases), Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No.26/2008 convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 8/18(C) of the NDPS Act and sentencing him to three years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.20,000/-. 2. Facts in brief are that the appellant was apprehended by the SHO Police Station Rawatsar on 10.7.2008 while carrying contraband opium weighing 600 Gms. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant in the court of the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act Cases), Hanumangarh, who by judgment dated 27.10.2014 has convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above. 3. Shri Garg, learned counsel for the appellant at the outset does not challenge the conviction of the petitioner. However, relying on the judgments rendered by this Court in the cases of Mohammad Ali v. State of Rajasthan reported in 2013(4) CJ(Cri.) (Raj.) 1914 and Niyamat Ali @ Nemu v. State of Rajasthan reported in 2013(4) CJ(Cri.) (Raj.) 1915, learned counsel prays that as the appellant has remained in custody for nearly 1 year and 4 months, the sentence awarded to the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the submissions advanced by the appellant's counsel. 5. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the judgment under challenge. 6. Since the appellant's counsel does not challenge the appellant's conviction, this Court need not go into the merits of the case and accordingly, the conviction of the appellant as recorded by the learned trial Court for the offence under Section 8/18(C) of the NDPS Act is maintained. 7. Now coming to the question of sentence. As per the material available on record, it is evident that the recovery in question was the appellant's first offence. There is no material on the record of the case to show that any other criminal case has been registered against the appellant till date. 7. Now coming to the question of sentence. As per the material available on record, it is evident that the recovery in question was the appellant's first offence. There is no material on the record of the case to show that any other criminal case has been registered against the appellant till date. The recovery was effected way-back in the year 2008 and thus, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the quantity of the opium recovered from the appellant's possession and the term of imprisonment undergone by him, which comes to nearly 1 year and 4 months, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be served if the substantive sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him while maintaining the fine of Rs.20,000/- as awarded by the trial Court. 8. Accordingly, the appeal succeeds in part. The conviction of the appellant as recorded by the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act Cases), Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No.26/2008 vide judgment dated 27.10.2014 is upheld. However, the substantive sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him. The sentence of fine is however maintained. Upon depositing the fine, the appellant forthwith be released from custody if not required in any other case. However, in case the fine is not deposited, the appellant shall be made to suffer the default sentence. Appeal Partly Allowed.