Kamal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 15169 MP

                                                          1



                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                    AT INDORE
                                                      BEFORE
                                        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA

                                          ON THE 18th OF NOVEMBER, 2022

                                       CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4293 of 2021

                           BETWEEN:-
                           KAMAL S/O NATHULAL TELI,
                           AGED ABOUT    36 YEARS,
                           OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE,
                           R/O GRAM KOTDA BAHADUR,
                           PS NAHARGARH, DISTRICT
                           MANDSAUR        (MADHYA
                           PRADESH)
                                                                           .....APPELLANT
                           (SHRI ABHAY SARASWAT, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
                           APPELLANT)

                           AND
                           THE STATE OF MADHYA
                           PRADESH STATION HOUSE
                           OFFICER  THROUGH     PS
                           GAROTH,        DISTRICT
                           MANDSAUR       (MADHYA
                           PRADESH)
                                                                         .....RESPONDENT
                           (SHRI VISHAL SANOTHIYA, LEARNED GA APPEARING ON BEHALF
                           OF ADVOCATE GENERAL)
                                 This application coming on for hearing this day, the court
                           passed the following:

Signature Not Verified
                                                   JUDGMENT

Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 11/22/2022 11/21/2022 7:19:48 PM 6:59:19

Heard on IA.No.9056/2022, which is an application for urgent hearing.

02- Matter is already taken up for hearing, therefore, application is disposed of being rendered infructuous. 03- Learned counsel for the appellant instead of pressing his application i.e. IA.No.8672/2022, which is an application for suspension of sentence, wishes to argue the matter finally. Therefore, IA.No.8672/2022 also stands disposed of. 04- With the consent of the parties, heard finally. 05- This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C.') against the impugned judgment dated 12/07/2021 passed by the Additional Special Judge, NDPS Act, Garoth, District Mandsaur in Special Sessions Case No.28/2009, whereby the appellant has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 8/15(B) of Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short 'NDPS Act') and sentenced to undergo 04 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.20,000/- with default stipulation of 03 months rigorous imprisonment.

06- The brief facts of the case are that on 26/03/2019, R. K. Singh Gour, ASI, Police Station Garoth got a discrete information form the informant that the appellant / accused Kamal along with his colleague Satyanarayan is coming with illegal contraband of Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 11/22/2022 11/21/2022 7:19:48 PM 6:59:19

Poppy Straw. Act upon the said information, a raid was organized and police party reached on the spot and intercepted the appellant / accused and recovered 25.800 Kilogram Poppy Straw from his possession, which was kept in a bag. Cash Rs.600/-along with a mobile phone of Nokia company have also been recovered from his possession. After following the due procedure, search and seizure, a case has been registered under Section 8/15(C) of the NDPS Act against the appellant / accused.

07- After completion of investigation, a charge sheet has been filed before the Additional Special Judge, NDPS Act, Mandsaur. Later on case was transferred to the Court of Additional Special Judge, NDPS Act, Garoth, District Mandsaur. The trial Court has framed charge under Section 8/15(C) of the NDPS Act and sentenced him to under go 04 years RI with fine of Rs.20,000/- with default stipulation, therefore, the appellant has preferred this criminal appeal before this Court. 08- The appellant has preferred this criminal appeal on various grounds but during the course of argument, learned counsel for the appellant did not press the appeal on merits. He did not assail the findings / conviction part of the judgment. He confines his arguments solely on the question of quantum of sentence only and his sole prayer is that the imprisonment of the appellant be reduced to the period already undergone, as appellant has suffered jail Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 11/22/2022 11/21/2022 7:19:48 PM 6:59:19

incarceration for more than 02 years and he is facing trial since the year 2009. It is further submitted that the appellant is about 37 years old. He is a poor person and is not having any criminal antecedent, therefore, his jail sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone.

09- Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent / State opposed his prayer and prays for its rejection by submitting that the trial Court has already convicted the appellant and sufficient sentence is awarded to him, therefore, no interference is required in the instant case.

10- Heard leaned counsel for the parties and considered their arguments.

11- In view of the above submissions, although the conviction has not been challenged by the appellant, but from perusal of the evidence available on record, it is clear that the trial Court was justified in passing the impugned judgment of conviction under Section 8/15(B) of the NPDS Act.

12- So far as the quantum of sentence is concerned, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant appears to be bona fide and proper. The appellant remained in custody from 26/03/2009 to 10/07/2009, 16/04/2021 to 22/06/2021 and from 12/07/2021 to till now, which is more than 02 years. Therefore, it would be appropriate to reduce the jail sentence to the period Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 11/22/2022 11/21/2022 7:19:48 PM 6:59:19

already undergone by the appellant. 13- Having regard to the aforesaid, the criminal appeal is partly allowed by maintaining the conviction, but reducing the sentence of the appellant to the period already undergone by him. The appellant be released from jail, in case he is not required in any other offence and also subject to payment of fine amount, if not already deposited by him.

14- In case of default in payment of fine amount, he is directed to serve the punishment of default stipulation i.e. 03 months RI as awarded by the trial Court. The order regarding the disposal of property by trial court is also affirmed. 15- Office is directed to send a copy of this judgment alongwith the record of the trial Court to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance.

Certified copy as per rules.

(ANIL VERMA) J U D G E Tej

Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 11/22/2022 11/21/2022 7:19:48 PM 6:59:19