Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1042 (RAJ)

SHAFI @ GABBA v. NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU

2017-04-20

PRASHANT KUMAR AGARWAL

body2017
JUDGMENT : Prashant Kumar Agarwal, J. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties the appeal itself was finally heard. 2. The accused-appellant has filed this Criminal Appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.07.2008 passed by the Special Judge (NDPS Cases), Jaipur in Sessions Case No.9/2005 whereby the learned trial Court after holding the appellant guilty for offence under Section 8/21 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act,1985 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act"), sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for fifteen years and to pay a fine of Rs. two lacs and in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. The appellant was also convicted for offence under Section 8/29 of the Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for fifteen years and to pay a fine of Rs. two lacs and in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. It was directed that both the substantive sentences would run concurrently. It is to be noted that along with appellant, co-accused were also convicted and sentenced accordingly and they have filed separate appeals which are pending. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant after arguing the appeal on merit for some time submitted that as the appellant has already served more than twelve years of imprisonment out of sentence of imprisonment of fifteen years awarded by the trial Court, he does not now want to challenge his conviction for aforesaid offences and his only prayer is that the substantive sentences of imprisonment awarded to the appellant by the trial Court for aforesaid offences may be reduced and modified to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him. It was also prayed that the appellant is a poor person and is not in a position to pay the amount of fine of Rs. two lacs as imposed by the trial Court and his further prayer is that the amount of fine may be reduced to the extent of minimum fine of Rs. one lac for each of the aforesaid offences and the default sentences may also be reduced and modified to the extent of imprisonment for three months. It was further submitted that there is no material on record to show that any other criminal case has ever been registered against the appellant. 4. one lac for each of the aforesaid offences and the default sentences may also be reduced and modified to the extent of imprisonment for three months. It was further submitted that there is no material on record to show that any other criminal case has ever been registered against the appellant. 4. On the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that from the evidence available on record and the finding of the trial Court it is clear that appellant was owner of huge quantity of narcotic drug which was found in the possession of co-accused and, therefore, the substantive sentences awarded to the appellant cannot be said to be excessive and unreasonable requiring any reduction. It was also submitted that similarly the default sentence awarded by the trial Court are also reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. In view of the submissions made, the conviction of the appellant for offences under Sections 8/21 and 8/21 read with Section 8/29 of the Act is upheld and affirmed and to that extent the appeal is dismissed but so far as the sentence part of the impugned judgment and order is concerned, in the facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly in view of the fact that no material is available on record to show that any other criminal case has ever been registered against the petitioner, the prayer made on behalf of the appellant is accepted and the substantive sentence awarded by the trial Court for both of aforesaid offences is reduced and modified to the period of imprisonment already served by the appellant. Similarly, the fine imposed by the trial Court for each of the aforesaid offences is reduced to the extent of fine of Rs. one lac. It is further ordered that if the appellant fails to deposit the aforesaid amount of fine, he would further suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months for each of the aforesaid offences. 6. With the aforesaid modification, the appeal stands disposed of. The seventh application for suspension of sentence also stands dismissed.