Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1813 (RAJ)

Dharmveer v. State of Rajasthan

2019-06-26

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2019
JUDGMENT Sandeep Mehta, J. - The appellant herein has been convicted and sentenced as below by the learned Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Cases, Sirohi, vide judgment dated 03.06.2011 passed in Sessions Case No. 01/2010:- Accused Appellant Conviction for offence under Section Sentence Default Sentences Dharamveer 8/20 N.D.P.S. Act 10 Years R.I. with fine of Rs.1,00,000/- 2 Years R.I. 2. Being aggrieved of his conviction and sentence, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C. 3. The case pertains to recovery of 3 Kgs. Charas from a bag being carried by the appellant who was apprehended by the officials of the GRP, Abu Road on 27.11.2009 while travelling inside the Train No.2916 UP Express at the Abu Road Railway Station. The requisite search and seizure proceedings were conducted. The bag held by the appellant was found having 3 packets of semi solid charas like contraband. Seizure Officer Shri Shamboo Singh, SHO, P.S. GRP, Abu Road (P.W.16) performed all the requisite formalities, summoned independent motbirs and effected the search and seizure vide Seizure Memo (Ex.P-6). Two samples each were collected from the three packets of the suspected contraband and were sealed. The accused appellant was arrested. The SHO returned to the police station and registered FIR No. 70/2009 against the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 8/20 of the N.D.P.S. Act. On the basis of the information supplied by the accused, the co-accused Amir Bhai, being the supplier of the contraband, was apprehended and a charge-sheet was filed against both the accused for the offences under Sections 8/20 and 8/29 of the N.D.P.S. Act. The trial Court framed charges against both the accused for the offences as above. Both pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examination as many as 17 witnesses and exhibited 62 documents to prove its case. Upon being questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and when confronted with the circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence, the accused denied the same and claimed to have been falsely implicated. 6 documents were exhibited, however, no oral evidence was led in defence. 4. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Judge, proceeded to hold the process of recovery and the subsequent steps of investigation qua the accused Dharamveer to be compliant of law. However, the prosecution case was found lacking as against the co-accused Amir Bhai. 6 documents were exhibited, however, no oral evidence was led in defence. 4. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Judge, proceeded to hold the process of recovery and the subsequent steps of investigation qua the accused Dharamveer to be compliant of law. However, the prosecution case was found lacking as against the co-accused Amir Bhai. Accordingly, the accused-appellant Dharamveer was convicted and sentenced as above whereas, the co-accused Amir Bhai was acquitted of the charges. Hence, this appeal. 5. Shri Rajiv Bishnoi, learned counsel representing the accused appellant fervently canvassed that the conviction of the accusedappellant for the offence under Section 8/20 of the N.D.P.S. Act is bad in facts as well as in eye of law, but he could not point out any significant shortcoming in the prosecution case which can persuade the Court to discard the same and acquit the accused of the charges. 6. I have minutely examined the evidence of the seizure officer and the other witnesses associated with the process of the recovery, forwarding of the samples to the FSL and the documents exhibited by the prosecution to prove its case and find that the seizure officer ensured compliance of all the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act while conducting the search and seizure proceedings. The evidence pertaining to the safekeeping of the samples of the contraband right from the time of the seizure till they reached the FSL, is also fool-proof and clinching. As per the FSL reports (Ex.P-55 & Ex.P-56), the samples collected by the seizure officer from the contraband seized from the accused were forwarded to the FSL and the same tested positive as charas. The recovered contraband weighed 3 kgs. and thus, the same is well above the commercial quantity. Hence, I do not find any reason to interfere in the conviction of the accused as recorded by the trial Court for the offence under Section 8/20 of the N.D.P.S. Act. The offence carries minimum sentence of 10 years and a minimum fine of Rs.1,00,000/-. The trial Court awarded the minimum of these sentences to the appellant after holding him guilty. Thus, the sentences awarded can also not be termed to be illegal or excessive. However, relying upon Hon'ble the Supreme Court decision in the case of Rafiq Qureshi Vs. The offence carries minimum sentence of 10 years and a minimum fine of Rs.1,00,000/-. The trial Court awarded the minimum of these sentences to the appellant after holding him guilty. Thus, the sentences awarded can also not be termed to be illegal or excessive. However, relying upon Hon'ble the Supreme Court decision in the case of Rafiq Qureshi Vs. Narcotic Control Bureau Eastern Zonal Unit in Criminal Appeal No.567/2019 decided on 07.05.2019, Shri Rajiv Bishnoi submitted that the default sentence of one year awarded by the trial Court to the appellant in lieu of non-payment of the fine, may be reduced suitably. In the above referred judgment, Hon'ble the Supreme Court reduced the sentence of 16 years awarded to the accused therein to a term of 12 years and the default sentence for nonpayment of fine of Rs.12,00,000/- was reduced to a period of six months. 7. In view of the above observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I am inclined to accept this limited prayer of Shri Bishnoi learned counsel representing the appellant. 8. Thus, while affirming the conviction of the appellant as recorded by the trial Court and the sentences awarded to him for the offence under Section 8/20 of the N.D.P.S. Act, I hereby modify the impugned judgment dated 03.06.2011 passed by the Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Cases, Sirohi to the extent that the default sentence to be suffered by the appellant in lieu of non-payment of fine of Rs.1,00,000/- shall stand reduced to a period of six months. 9. The appeal is partly allowed in terms indicated above.