Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1873 (RAJ)

Madan Lal Jat v. State of Rajasthan

2019-07-02

MANOJ KUMAR GARG

body2019
JUDGMENT : MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J. Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant u/Sec. 374(2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 23.09.2011 passed by learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No. 44/2007 by which the learned Judge convicted the appellant for offence under Section 8/18 NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo three years R.I. alongwith fine of Rs. 30,000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo nine months R.I. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 27.08.2007, SHO Police Station Nohar, lodged a FIR stating that he alongwith patrolling party laid an ambush on road towards Nahar colony passing through Fefana Road. When a white jeep was stopped, the driver tried to run away who was caught by the patrolling party. A search was made of jeep and total 800 gm of opium milk was recovered. The police seized the contraband and arrested the appellant. 3. The police registered the FIR for offence under Section 8/18 NDPS Act and started investigation. After investigation, the police filed challan against the present appellant for offence under Section 8/18 NDPS Act. Thereafter, the charges of the case were framed against the appellant. He denied the charges and claimed trial. 4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses and various documents were also exhibited. Thereafter, statement of appellant under section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded. On defence sid statement of DW/1 Mohar Singh was recorded. 5. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 23.09.2011 convicted and sentenced the appellant for offence under Section 8/18 NDPS Act as mentioned earlier. 6. At the threshold, learned counsel for the appellant does not challenge the finding of conviction but it is submitted that since the occurrence relates back to year 2007 and the recovered contraband is belong commercial quantity. It is argued that no other criminal case is pending against the appellant and the appellant has so far suffered a sentence of 345 days i.e. almost eleven months and fifteen days imprisonment, therefore, it is prayed that the substantive sentence awarded to the appellant for the aforesaid offence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. It is argued that no other criminal case is pending against the appellant and the appellant has so far suffered a sentence of 345 days i.e. almost eleven months and fifteen days imprisonment, therefore, it is prayed that the substantive sentence awarded to the appellant for the aforesaid offence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the appellant relied upon judgments in the case of Mukesh Kumar v. State of M.P., reported in AIR 2015 (SC) (Suppl) 486, Deepchand v. State of Raj, reported in 1996 Cri.L.J 54, Bhola Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in 2014 Cri.L.J 4736 and Sher Singh v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2016 (1) WLN 156 (Raj.). On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. The learned PP submitted that there is neither any occasion to interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused appellant nor any compassion or sympathy is called for in the said case. 7. 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 NDPS Act is maintained. 8. I have perused the evidence of the prosecution as well as defence and the judgment passed by the trial court regarding conviction of the accused-appellant. It is not disputed that the appellant has so far undergone a period of almost eleven months and fifteen days incarceration out of the total three years rigorous imprisonment so also suffered the agony and trauma of protracted trial. As per material available on record, it is evident that the recovery in question was appellant's first offence. Thus, looking to the over-all circumstances and the fact that the appellant has remained behind the bars for considerable time, it will be just and proper if the sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under Section 8/18 NDPS Act is reduced to the period already undergone by him while maintaining the amount of fine in the sum of Rs. 30,000/-. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. 30,000/-. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining the appellant's conviction and sentence for offence under Section 8/18 NDPS Act, the sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone, however the amount of fine is hereby maintained. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. Two month's time is granted to deposit the fine before the trial court. Appellant is on bail. His bail bonds stand discharged. The record of the trial court be sent back forthwith.