Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2322 (RAJ)

Hardeep Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2019-08-28

MANOJ KUMAR GARG

body2019
JUDGMENT Manoj Kumar Garg, J. - Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 29.03.2012 passed by learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Sriganganagar in Sessions Case No. 20/2010 by which the learned Judge convicted the appellant for offence under Section 8/15 NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo two years R.I. alongwith fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo six months R.I. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 10.06.2010, the S.H.O. Police Station Ghamoorwali alongwith police party while on receiving a secret information, reached at a shop situated in Village 2 BB, Near Water Works. Upon search of the shop, the police found one plastic bag containing poppy husk for which the appellant had no license or permit. The police seized the contraband and arrested the appellant. 3. The police registered the FIR for offence under Section 8/15 NDPS Act and started investigation. After investigation, the police filed challan against the present appellant for offence under Section 8/15 of 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 thirteen witnesses and various documents were also exhibited. Thereafter, statement of appellant under section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded. 5. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 29.03.2012 convicted and sentenced the appellant for offence under Section 8/15 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 04 kg poppy husk, which is below commercial quantity, was recovered from the appellant. Since the occurrence relates back to year 2010 and the appellant has so far suffered a sentence of about three months imprisonment and four days out of total sentence of two years, 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 judgment of this Court in the case of Mohammad Ali v. State of Rajasthan,2013 4 CJ(Cri)(Raj) 1914 , Niyamat Ali Nemu v. State of Rajasthan,2013 4 CJ(Cri)(Raj) 1915 , Sher Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, (2016) 1 WLN(Raj) 156 7. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the appellant relied upon judgment of this Court in the case of Mohammad Ali v. State of Rajasthan,2013 4 CJ(Cri)(Raj) 1914 , Niyamat Ali Nemu v. State of Rajasthan,2013 4 CJ(Cri)(Raj) 1915 , Sher Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, (2016) 1 WLN(Raj) 156 7. 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. 8. 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 8/15 NDPS Act is maintained. 9. 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 about three months and four days incarceration out of the total two years rigorous imprisonment so also suffered the agony and trauma of protracted trial. As per material available on record, it appears 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 8/15 NDPS Act is reduced to the period already undergone by him while maintaining the amount of fine in the sum of Rs. 10,000/-. 10. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining the appellant's conviction and sentence for offence under Section 8/15 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 six 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. 11. The record of the trial court be sent back forthwith.