Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vinod Kumar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 December, 2023
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 13 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5208 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
VINOD KUMAR S/O PREMCHANDRA, AGED ABOUT 32
YEAR S, OCCUPATION: MAJDURI JALAL DIVAL JILA
LUDIANA (PUNJAB)
.....APPELLANT
(SHRI ANIL OJHA - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION G.R.P.
SHAMGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(SHRI TARUN PAGARE- PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
T h is appeal coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
following:
ORDER
With the consent of the parties, the matter is finally heard.
1. The present appeal is filed under section 374 of Cr.P.C challenging the
order of conviction and sentence dated 13.06.2022 passed by Additional
Special Judge, NDPS Act, Garoth, District Mandsaur in Special Case NDPS
No.02/2017 arising out of crime no.13/2017 convicting the appellant under
section 18(c) of the NPDS Act and sentencing him for 4 years RI with fine of
Rs.20,000/-.
2. According to the prosecution P.F. of Shamgarh railway station on
reaching the footbridge near the footbridge under the rosewood tree located
between the pew and the electricity pole number 57, he placed the research
material on the bench located near the tree and on looking for the person who
was told by the informer, hanging a blue colored bag on the suspect's shoulder.
He was sitting on the bench, after seeing the police he stood with a bag which
with the help of forces and pachanas was besieged and stopped when the sub-
inspector asked him his name he told his name to be Vinod Kumar's father
Premchandra. In this regard Panchnama (Exhibit P-03) was made. On
confirmation of the informer's information Section 50 NDPS has been filed by
Sub Inspector Pramod Singh Bhadauria. By preparing an information sheet
under the Act, Vinod Kumar was told about his constitutional rights that he can
search the bag kept with him to the nearest magistrate or competent gazetted
officer or if he ant, search his bag. He can also give that to sub-inspector before
the present Panchs. Under the NDPS Act, a copy was given to Vinod Kumar
by making a Panchnama (Exhibit P04), on which Vinod Kumar agreed to search
only by Sub- Inspector Pramod Singh Bhadauria without giving his search to
the nearest Magistrate or Competent Gazetted Officer. Panchnama consent
(Exhibit P- 05) was made. After that, the sub-inspector gave their respective
searches to Vinod, the suspect of Humrahi Force and Panches, then no
objectionable object was found with anyone in connection with which
Panchnama Search and Force(Exhibit P-06) was created. Infront of both the
Panchs present, written consent was taken from Vinod Kumar in writing,
Panchnama (Exhibit P-07) was made. After that the blue colored bag was
searched by the sub-inspector of the twelve suspect Vinod Kumar. Inside
which some stuff was found in the pocket inside the bottom, inside which
opened the top of a bag with a gray stripe on which FLORET print was seen
then the adhesive strip inside. When he opened it he saw another one of red
color whoever opened it by putting his hand inside and saw the goods kept in it
then a black brown colored drug in a plastic Polythene looked like opium. On
asking Sadehi Vinod about the said drug, he was told to have one kilogram of
opium, in connection with which Panchnama search of the suspect was made
(Exhibit P-08). Thereafter, the FIR lodged against the Appellant at police
station G.R.P. Shamgarh, Dist.-Mandsaur, MP. convicted the appellant as
described above.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the aforesaid quantity of
opium is less than commercial quantity and out of four years he has already
undergone 21 months actual jail sentence. The son of the appellant is suffering
from Chronic Myeloid Leukemia CML (Blood Cell Cancer). he is 9 years old
and there is no male member to take care of the child.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent/state supports the impugned
judgment of conviction and sentence but does not dispute the fact that the
appellant already undergone actual jail sentence of 21 months.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into
consideration that there is no minimum jail sentence prescribed for the non-
commercial quantity under which the appellant has been convicted. The
appellant has already undergone actual jail sentence of 21 months out of total
four years imprisonment. The applicant has maintained good record. No
purpose would be served in continuing the appellant in jail.
6. Therefore, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction is maintained.
The jail sentence of the applicant is reduced to the period already undergone by
him and the fine amount is enhanced to from Rs.20,000/- to total Rs.25,000.
The appellant shall deposit total fine amount of Rs.25,000/- including the fine
amount already paid before the trial Court. The appellant shall be released
forthwith after depositing the enhanced amount if not required in any other case.
In case if the applicant fails to deposit the fine amount within the aforesaid
period, the applicant shall undergo the remaining jail sentence as per the order
of the trial court.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
Sourabh
