Madhya Pradesh High Court
Riyaaj vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 August, 2024
Author: Prem Narayan Singh
Bench: Prem Narayan Singh
1 CRA-4972-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4972 of 2024
RIYAAJ
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Parvez Mev, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri H.S.Rathore, learned GA for the State.
Heard on: 05.8.2024
Pronounced on:13.8.2024
JUDGMENT
This criminal appeal is preferred under section 374 of Cr.P.C. by the
appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 19.03.2024, passed by
Special Judge, NDPS Act, Jaora District Ratlam in S.T. No.06/2017,
whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under
Section 8/15-B of NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo 03 years RI with fine
of Rs.20,000/-, with default stipulations.
2.As per the prosecution story, on 15.03.2019, the concerning police
has received a secret information regarding contraband article and after that
concerning police took action on the information received and they reached
on the spot and caught the appellant and made a total recovery of 10 kgs of
Poppy Straw from his possession and police arrested the appellant.
3. The appellant was tried and charged under Section 8/15-B of NDPS
2 CRA-4972-2024
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 while acquitted the co-accused Nadeem (deceased).
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 did not assail the finding of conviction part of
the 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 10
month's custody period out of 03 years . The appellant 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 5 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. In support of his contention, counsel for the appellant has placed
reliance over the judgment passed in CRA No.7063/2022 (Mukesh Kumar
Jatav Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh) decided on 12.05.2023 wherein co-
ordinate Bench of this Court has reduced and undergone the sentence of the
appellant in only 09 months out of 10 years. Similarly, in this Bench in the
case of Tulsiram vs. State of M.P. passed in CRA No.12105/2023 decided
on 01.12.2023 wherein this Bench has passed the sentence of six months out
of four years of imprisonment by enhancing the fine from Rs.30000/- to
Rs.100000/-.
3 CRA-4972-2024
6. Learned Govt. Advocate has opposed the prayer. He supported the
judgment and order by submitting that there is clear evidence against the
appellant, therefore, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.
7. I have considered rival contentions of the parties and have perused
the record.
8. So for as the contentions on merits of the case raised in appeal
memo by learned counsel for the appellant is concerned, 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. In so far as the sentence is concerned, the appellant has already
suffered more approximately ten month of his jail incarceration out of three
years, his sentence may be reduced with the undergone sentence by
enhancing the fine amount.
10. In this regard, earlier also the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this
Court has also considered the prayer and reduced the incarceration period of
the accused persons to the period already undergone in the cases where the
quantity of the contraband is found to be of non-commercial or lesser than
4 CRA-4972-2024
the commercial quantity.
11. On this aspect, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of R.
Kumaravel vs. Inspector of Police NIB CID (RA No.1056/2019) decided on
15.07.2019 has observed as under:-
"As per Section 20(b)(ii) (b) of minimum punishment is
prescribed for involvement of the quantity lesser than commercial
quantity, by greater than the small quantity.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has
submitted that the appellant has no criminal antecedents. The appellant
has already undergone imprisonment for about 206 days. Considering
the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence of imprisonment of
two years imposed upon the appellant is reduced to one year."
12. Further, on this aspect, the case of Mangilal Vs. Central Narcotics
Bureau 2006 Law Suit (MP)111 is worth referring here wherein the Court
has partly allowed the appeal and as the case was related to 2 kg opium i.e.
non-commercial quantity, passed a conviction for 3 years RI with fine of Rs.
1000/- instead of 5 years. Similarly, in the case of Kamal Vs. State of M.P.
2012 Law Suit (M.P. 2298 (CRA No.10/2011), Baba @ Akash Sonkar vs.
State of M.P. 2020 Law Suit MP 1645 (CRA No.426/2000), Bhagwat Patel
Vs. State of M.P. 2022 Law Suit 789 (CRA No.674/2022), Munna @ Munnu
Pandit 2022 Law Suit 789 (CRA No.2494/2022) the co-ordinate Bench have
reduced to the sentences of the accused persons respectively in non-
commercial quantities. In the case of Kamal (supra) , the co-ordinate Bench
has undergone the punishment in approximately two years out of five years
5 CRA-4972-2024
for non-commercial quantity, in the case of Baba @ Akash Sonkar (supra) ,
undergone the sentence in one year out of seven years imprisonment, in
Bhagwat Patel (supra) the Bench has reduced the sentence to the period
already undergone in 8 months and similarly in in the case of Munna (supra)
in seven months.
13. In view of the aforesaid, the point of sentence is considered. It
seems that the appellant has suffered approximately 10 month of his
incarceration out of 3 years. That apart. the appellant has suffered the ordeal
of criminal case since 2019. 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 (supra) as well as the settled propositions of law
endorsed by Co-ordinate bench of this court, has been perused.
14.In view of the aforesaid legal proposition regarding non-
commercial quantity so also considering the fact that there is no criminal
record/antecedents of the appellant, therefore, this Court finds it expedient to
partly allow this appeal. However, looking to the facts and circumstances of
the case, sentence one year of R.I. would to sufficient with enhancement of
fine to meet the ends of justice.
15. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is partly allowed and the
sentence under Section 8/15-B of the NDPS Act awarded to the appellant is
hereby reduced to one years R.I. from three years R.I. by enhancing the fine
from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.50,000/-. In case of failure to deposit the fine amount,
the appellant shall further undergo for three months simple imprisonment.
16. The bail bond of the appellant shall be discharged after depositing
6 CRA-4972-2024
of the enhanced fine amount. Fine amount, if already deposited shall be
adjusted.
17. The judgment of learned trial Court regarding disposal of the
seized property stands affirmed.
18. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for
necessary compliance.
(PREM NARAYAN SINGH)
JUDGE
VD
