Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rakesh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 February, 2021
Author: Sujoy Paul
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
1 CRA No.1776/2016
Criminal Appeal No.1776/2016
(Rakesh Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore, Dated : 25.2.2021
Shri A.K. Saxena, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Matter is listed for considering the final submissions on the
criminal appeal filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C.
Learned counsel the appellant, at the outset, has submitted
that he does not seek to controvert the findings arrived at by the
trial Court and would limit his submissions to the quantum of
sentence only.
Heard.
(JUDGMENT)
1/ The present appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. arises
from the judgment dated 24.8.2016 pronounced by the Special
Judge, Mandsaur in Special S.T. No.2/2013, whereby the
appellant Rakesh has been convicted under Section 8/18(b) of the
NDPS Act and sentenced to 11 years R.I. and One Lakh Rupees
of fine with default stipulation of one year R.I.
2/ As per the prosecution story, the appellant was found
to be in possession of 4 kg 500 gms of opium, a narcotic
substance, on 31.8.2012. The aforesaid seizure was made from
him pursuant to information received in Police Station Afzalpur by
Sub Inspector Shri B.L. Nagar, who after receiving such an
information laid a trap and intercepted the motorcycle bearing
registration No.MP13-MI-6093. The motorcycle was being driven
by the appellant and after due procedure prescribed under
Section 50 of NDPS Act, the bag hanging on the handle of the
motorcycle was searched which was found to contain the opium in
aforesaid quantity, which is commercial quantity as per the NDPS
Act. After resorting to residual investigation process, charge sheet
was filed under the provisions of Section 8/18(b) of NDPS Act.
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
The appellant abjured his guilt and thereafter evidence ensued.
The charge framed against the appellant has been found to be
proved by the trial Court as described earlier.
3/ As has already been mentioned, learned counsel for
the appellant has not controverted the findings arrived at by the
trial Court and limits his submission to the quantum of sentence.
4/ The evidence on record was perused. The finding of
conviction by the trial Court is based on appropriate appreciation
of evidence and hence conviction of appellant is affirmed.
5/ Reverting to the question of quantum of sentence,
possession of commercial quantity of opium calls for imposition of
minimum sentence of 10 years extendable to 20 years along with
fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees and which may
extend to two lakh rupees. In the present case, the appellant has
been sentenced to 11 years R.I. and fine of Rs.1 Lakh.
6/ Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn the
Court's attention to Section 32B of the NDPS Act and submits that
the conditions contained in Section 32B-(a) to (f) are not available
for enhancement of sentence to a term more than 10 years.
Further, he has cited judgments in the case of Balwinder Singh
and others Vs. Asst. Commissioner, Customs and Central
Excise passed in Criminal Appeal No.547/2004 vide order
dated 22.2.2005, Amar Singh Vs. State of M.P. passed in
Criminal Appeal No.1112/2020 vide order dated 7.10.2015,
Shanti Lal Vs. State of M.P. passed in Criminal Appeal
No.1375/2007 vide judgment dated 8.10.2007 and
Hokamchand Meena @ Bhuralal Vs. State of M.P. passed in
Criminal Appeal No.210/2007 vide order dated 29.10.2015. In
all these cases the period of sentence has been reduced to the
minimum stipulated period in view of the facts and circumstances
prevailing therein.
7/ Submissions of learned counsel for the State were
also heard.
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
8/ The appellant has been in jail from 4.9.2012 onwards
till now. There are no criminal antecedents of likewise nature
against the appellant as can be seen from the arrest memo
Ex.P/14 placed on record. Hence, after due consideration it would
be appropriate to consider the submissions of the learned counsel
for the appellant favourably in the present case.
9/ Consequently the jail sentence of the appellant is
reduced from 11 years R.I. to 10 years R.I. which is the minimum
prescribed sentence under Section 18(b) of NDPS Act.
10/ It is further prayed that the period of default
imprisonment on non payment of fine amount of Rs.1 Lakh be
also reduced to 6 months. While making such submission, learned
counsel for the appellant has again invited our attention to the
aforesaid citations, in which the period of default imprisonment
has been reduced from one year to 6 months. In consonance with
above, this submission also stands allowed and the period of
imprisonment in jail in default of payment of Rs.1 Lakh fine stands
reduced from one year to six months.
11/ This appeal consequently is partly allowed in terms
of quantum of sentence in the aforesaid terms.
12/ Copy of this judgment be sent along with the original
record to the concerned trial Court for compliance.
C.C. as per rules.
(Sujoy Paul) (Shailendra Shukla)
Judge Judge
trilok/-
Digitally signed by Trilok Singh
Savner
Date: 2021.03.01 10:52:29 +05'30'
