Madhya Pradesh High Court
Tulsiram vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 December, 2023
Author: Prem Narayan Singh
Bench: Prem Narayan Singh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 12105 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
TULSIRAM S/O SHRI BHERULAL, AGED ABOUT 52
YE A R S , OCCUPATION: LABOR R/O GRAMHATHI
BOLIYA DISTT. MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI VIKAS JAIN, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION NAHARGARH,
DIST. MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI H.S. RATHORE, GA FOR STATE )
Reserved on :28.11.2023
Pronounced on :01.12.2023
This criminal appeal having been heard and reserved for judgment,
coming on for pronouncement this day, the court passed the following:
JUDGMENT
1. This criminal appeal is preferred under section 374 of Cr.P.C. by the
appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 19.09.2022, passed by learned
Special Judge, NDPS Act, Mandsaur, in ST No. 700011/2015, whereby the
appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section
8(c)/15(b) of NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo 04 years RI with fine of
Rs.30,000/-, with default stipulation.
2 . The appellant was tried and charged under Section 8(c)/15(c) of
NDPS Act. The learned trial Court, after considering the evidence and material
available on record has convicted the appellant, as stated above in para No. 1 of
this order.
3 . A s per the case of prosecution on 06.04.2015, on a discreet
information that some persons were transporting illegal contraband, the police
team recovered 26KG of poppy straw. Thereafter after folowing the due
procedure of law, FIR was registered. Thereafter, investigation was conducted
and charge sheet was filed after which the charges were framed against the
present appellant but he denied the same and expressed his willingness to face
the trial, the present appellant was found guilty for the offences u/s 8(c)/15(b) of
the NDPS Act,1985 .
4. The appellant has preferred this criminal appeal on several grounds but
during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant did not press
this appeal on merits and not assail the finding part of judgment. He confines his
arguments on the point of sentence. Counsel for the appellant assures that the
appellant will not involve in such criminal activities in future. He also submitted
that the appellant has suffered more than 06 months custody period. He further
submitted that he is having regard to all circumstances which resulted in
appellant's conviction and further keeping in view the fact that the appellant was
facing the trial before the concerned Court for more than 6 years, therefore, he
prayed that the appeal be partly allowed and the sentence awarded to the
appellant be reduced to the period already undergone.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the prayer by
submitting that the contraband was seized from possession of the appellant.
6. Having considered the rival submissions and on perusal of the record,
the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant appears to be just and
proper.
7 . However, the learned trial Court has not committed any error in
appreciation of evidence available on record. Further, it is found that the Court
below considered the evidence available on record and correctly found that the
case of the prosecution is well supported by the witnesses and documentary
testimony. The procedure was well followed by the prosecution and the
witnesses of prosecution have profoundly supported the prosecution case.
The Court below has well considered the material available on record, hence, no
infirmity is found in the impugned order of conviction passed by the Court
below, accordingly, the same is upheld.
9.The learned Trial Court has passed the order of conviction against the
appellant under Section 8(c)/15(b) of NDPS Act. The order of conviction is not
suffered from any infirmity, illegality. Accordingly, the same is up held. So far
as, the sentence is concerned, it seems that the appellant has already suffered
more than 06 months. There is no minimum sentence prescribed in this regard.
On this aspect, the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of R.
Kumarawal Vs. Inspector of Police NIB CID (Criminal Appeal No.
1056/2019), h a s been perused. In this case, Hon'ble Apex Court after
considering the fact that the quantity of contraband was non-commercial had
reduced the sentence of appellant to already undergone imprisonment for about
six months. The facts of the case are different but regarding sentencing, the
guidance can be obtained from the said judgment.
10. That apart. the appellant has suffered the ordeal of criminal case since
2015 and also there is no criminal record/antecedents of the appellant,
therefore, this Court finds it expedient to partly allow this appeal.
11. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is partly allowed and the sentence
awarded to the appellant is hereby reduced to the sentence already undergone
b y increasing the fine from Rs.30,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/- under Section
8(c)/15(b) of NDPS Act to be deposited by the appellant.The amount of fine
enhanced by this Court shall be deposited within one month from today. If the
appellant fails to deposit the fine amount, he shall suffer 03 months of simple
imprisonment in default.
12. The appellant is set at liberty to release forthwith if not required in
other case.
13. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for
necessary compliance.
(PREM NARAYAN SINGH)
JUDGE
AMIT
