Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mohd. Raheem vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 December, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL
ON THE 11 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 9262 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
MOHD. RAHEEM S/O MOHD. SAKOOR, AGED ABOUT 37
YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR SARANGGARH POLICE
STATION KOTMA DISTRICT ANUPPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI RAKESH KUMAR TIWARI - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE
STATION KOTMA DISTRICT ANUPPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY MS. HEMLATA KSHATRIYA - PANEL LAWYER )
Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. against
the judgment of conviction dated 23.09.2022 passed by the Special Judge
(NDPS Act), Anuppur in SPL Case No.09/2017, whereby learned Special
Judge found the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)
(ii)(b )of the NDPS Act and directed to suffer R.I. for four years with fine of
Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation.
2. Relevant facts, briefly stated are that on the basis of report lodged,
Crime No.378/2017 was registered against the appellant at Police Station
Kotma, District Anuppur for commission of offence punishable under Section
20-B of the NDPS Act. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has
been filed before the competent Court.
3. After recording the statements of prosecution witnesses and
appreciating the evidence led by parties, learned trial Court found the appellant
guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(b) of the
NDPS Act and sentenced him as mentioned above. Being aggrieved with the
impugned judgment, the appellant has preferred this criminal appeal before this
Court.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant expressly gave up their challenge to
the findings of the Court below so far as is the conviction of the appellant are
concerned. In other words, learned counsel for the appellant accepted the
finding of conviction passed against the appellant, however, he challenged the
quantum of punishment alone. It is submitted that the appellant is the only
earning person in his family, he is the first offender and counsel assures that he
will not involve in such criminal activities in future. It is also submitted that
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 one year and three months, therefore, he prayed
that his jail sentence be reduced suitably.
5. Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State has submitted that after
appreciating the evidence produced by the prosecution, the Courts below have
rightly found the appellant guilty for the aforesaid offence, therefore, no
grounds are available for reducing the jail sentence awarded to the appellant,
hence, she prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of entire
record of the case, I am inclined to allow this appeal in part upon finding some
force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant.
7. Though the appellant has not made any attempt to assail the finding of
his conviction on merits, yet with a view to satisfy myself as to whether the
findings of the Courts below of conviction is legally sustainable or not, I
perused the record and especially therein having so perused, I am satisfied that
no case is made out to interfere in the findings of the Courts below on merits.
From the perusal of the record, it reveals that FIR was registered promptly,
therefore, upheld the findings of conviction under Section 20(b)(ii)(b )of the
NDPS Act recorded by the Courts below.
8. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant,
natures of the substance, its quantity and period of jail sentence already
undergone by him which is about one year and three months as on date, I am of
the considered view that the ends of justice would be met if the appellant is
sentenced for the period already undergone by him with some enhancement in
the fine amount.
9. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned conviction
i s hereby maintained. However, the jail sentence imposed on appellant is
reduced to the period already undergone by him and the sentence of fine is
enhanced from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.20,000/-. In default of payment of enhanced
fine amount, the appellant shall suffer 1 month R.I. He be released forthwith,
subject to payment of fine and if not required in any other case. Amount of fine,
if any, deposited earlier shall be adjusted.
10. The order of the learned Trial Court regarding disposal of property is
hereby confirmed.
11. With the aforesaid modification, the present criminal appeal stands
partly allowed and disposed of.
Let a copy of this order alongwith record be sent to the court below for
information and necessary compliance.
Certified copy as per Rules.
(PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL)
JUDGE
Sateesh
