Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Rameshbhai H. Patel on 14 June, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/801/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/06/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 801 of 2007
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI : Sd/-
=======================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be NO
allowed to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the
fair copy of the judgment ? NO
4 Whether this case involves a substantial
question of law as to the interpretation
of the Constitution of India or any NO
order made thereunder ?
=======================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
RAMESHBHAI H. PATEL & ORS.
=======================================================
Appearance:
MR SOAHAM JOSHI APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR BN LIMBACHIA for the /Respondent(s) No. 1,2,6,7,8
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 3,4,5
=======================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
Date : 14/06/2024
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. By way of present appeal under Section 377 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter
referred to as "CrPC" for short), the appellant -
State of Gujarat has preferred this appeal for
enhancement of the sentence imposed upon the
respondents - accused by judgment and order dated
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/801/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/06/2024
undefined
02.03.2007 passed by the learned Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad City in
Criminal Case No.159/1987.
2. The brief facts leading to filing of the present
appeal are as under,
2.1 On the strength of the secret information
received by the Drug Inspector of
manufacturing, storing and selling without
valid licence, a raid was carried out in the
presence of panchas and while carrying out
raid, it was found that the accused are
manufacturing, storing and selling the
illegal drugs without any valid licence and,
hence, complaint for the alleged breach of
the provision of Sections 18(A)(1), 18(1)(6)
and 18(C) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act,
1940 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"
for short), which is punishable under Section
27 of the Act and it has been numbered as
Criminal Case No.159/1987 before the court of
learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Ahmedabad City.
2.2 After filing of the complaint, process was
issued and in pursuance thereto, the accused
have appeared before the court concerned.
2.3 However pending trial, the respondents -
original accused nos.4 to 11 have submitted
purshis, whereby they have admitted their
guilt.
2.4 Therefore after hearing the parties, by
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/801/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/06/2024
undefined
judgment and order dated 01.03.2007, the
learned Magistrate concerned was pleased to
convict the respondents - accused for the
offences punishable under Sections 18(A)(1),
18(1)(6) and 18(C) of the Act and sentenced
them to undergo imprisonment till rising of
the court and fine of Rs.500/-, in default,
to undergo seven days simple imprisonment for
the offence under Section 18(A)(1) of the
Act, sentenced them to undergo imprisonment
till rising of the court and fine of
Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo ten days
simple imprisonment for the offence under
Section 18(1)(6) of the Act and sentenced
them to undergo imprisonment till rising of
the court and fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default,
to undergo fifteen days simple imprisonment
for the offence under Section 18(C) of the
Act.
2.5 The aforesaid judgment has been assailed in
the present appeal for enhancement of the
sentence imposed upon the respondents -
accused.
3. Heard APP Mr. Soaham Joshi for the appellant -
State of Gujarat. Learned advocate, Mr. B.N.
Limbachia representing the respondents - accused
has not remained present.
4. Learned APP Mr. Joshi submitted that the judgment
and order of conviction passed by the learned
Magistrate is contrary to law and against the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/801/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/06/2024
undefined
settle proposition of law and, hence, the sentence
imposed upon the respondents - accused may be
enhanced as the said sentence imposed upon the
respondents - accused is highly inadequate and
disproportionate to the offence committed by the
accused. Learned APP submitted that merely by
admitting the guilt by the accused by submitting
purshis, learned Magistrate ought not to have less
sentence that what is prescribed under the law.
Learned APP submitted that the learned Magistrate
ought to have appreciated the fact that the
accused are involved in the illegal activity of
manufacturing, storing and selling the illegal
drugs, which have been seized from the premises
after drawing necessary panchnama, which itself
suggests implication of the accused and, hence, no
leniency ought to have been shown at the time of
conducting the trial. Learned APP submitted that
considering the crime committed by the accused
persons and the nature of crime and seriousness of
the offence, learned Magistrate ought to have
imposed maximum punishment prescribed under the
statute. It is, therefore, urged that considering
the above facts of the case, this appeal may be
allowed and the sentence may be enhanced upon the
accused.
5. I have heard learned APP for the appellant - State
of Gujarat and also considered the material and
evidence available on record including the finding
given and conclusion arrived at by the learned
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/801/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/06/2024
undefined
Magistrate while passing judgment and order. It is
observed by the learned Magistrate in the impugned
order that the accused have admitted their guilt
and it was their first offence and they have not
received any monetary benefits from the muddamal
seized from their possession, which were in less
quantity. Not only that, it is also observed that
the complainant has also no objection if less
sentence is imposed. Thus after having considered
the aforesaid aspects, the learned Judge has
passed the impugned judgment and conviction, which
in my considered opinion, cannot be said to be
inadequate and disproportionate, which would not
call for any interference.
6. It is well settled by catena of judicial
pronouncement by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well
as by this Court that normally the High Court as a
Appellate Court would not interfere with the
discretion exercised for the sentence unless it is
said to be too lenient or perverse or contrary to
the statutory provisions providing for the minimum
punishment. A useful reference can be made to the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Aero
Traders (P) Ltd. v. Ravinder Kumar Suri, reported
in (2004) 8 SCC 307 in case of. It has been
observed:
"6. ......According to Black's Law Dictionary
"judicial discretion" means the exercise of
judgment by a Judge or court based on what
is fair under the circumstances and guided
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/801/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/06/2024
undefined
by the rules and principles of law; a
court's power to act or not act when a
litigant is not entitled to demand the act
as a matter of right. The word "discretion"
connotes necessarily an act of a judicial
character, and, as used with reference to
discretion exercised judicially, it implies
the absence of a hard-and-fast
rule, ................................"
7. Therefore the judicious discretion has to be
exercised depending upon the facts and
circumstances as well as the material and evidence
on record.
8. Therefore in view of the above observations and in
view of the aforesaid decision, I am in complete
agreement with the findings given and conclusion
arrived at by the learned Magistrate while passing
impugned judgment and order.
9. Hence, this appeal is dismissed. Registry to
transmit back the R&P to the trial court concerned
forthwith.
Sd/-
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI, J.)
Gautam
