Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vijay Sahu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 February, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 2 nd OF FEBRUARY, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2271 of 2008
BETWEEN:-
VINAY SAHU S/O S/O SUNDERLAL SAHU, AGED ABOUT
25 YEARS, VILL. PANAGAR, PS GADARWARA, DISTT.
NARSINGHPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI MANISH MUKHRAIYA - ADVOCATE AS AMICUS CURIAE )
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH P.S.
G A D A R WA R A DIST. NARSINGHPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY MS. SEEMA SAHU - PANEL LAWYER )
Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
By the present appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, the appellant has challenged the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence passed by Special Judge, (N.D.P.S.) Narsinghpur District Narsingpur
in Special Case No.03/2007 whereby the appellant has been convicted under
Sections 8/20 (B) NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo 6 month RI and fine of
Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation.
2. As none appeared on behalf of the appellant, Shri Manish Mukhraiya,
Advocate who is present in the Court, has been requested to assist the Court on
behalf of the appellant as amicus curiae.
3 . As per prosecution story 01.02.2007, appellant was going to by
motorcycle having one green bag containing ganja then the ASI OP Singh
receiving an information rushed the spot and arrested the appellant with the
contraband articles.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that he does not press the
appeal on the findings of conviction. He further submits that the incident was
of the year 2007. He has no criminal antecedents. There was no mens rea
behind the incident so a liberal view on the point of sentence be taken by the
Court. He prayed that the sentence be reduced to period already undergone.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State
supported the finding of conviction. She said that Court is at liberty to consider
the case on the point of sentence.
6. After considering the arguments of both the parties and after perusal of
record, FIR was lodged on 01.02.2007 and offence u/S 8/20 has been
registered against him. After investigation charge sheet was filed.
7. Learned trial Judge after considering the statements of the witnesses by
judgment dated 20.10.2008 convicted the appellant under Section 8/20 (B)
NDPS Act and sentenced as stated herein above, however, the findings of
conviction of accused/appellant recorded by the learned trial Judge are based
on due appreciation of evidence and do not require any interference.
8. Having regard to the arguments of the parties, and careful perusal of
record and also the provisions of Section 8/20 (B) NDPS Act wherein there is
no minimum sentence is prescribed. In this case of conviction, keeping in view
the long pendency of this appeal since 2007 and keeping in view that appellant
is facing mental agony since then and that prosecution has not brought any past
criminal antecedents of the appellant he did not misuse the liberty granted under
the bail, He has suffered incarceration of 46 days. In the considered opinion of
this court while maintaining conviction under aforesaid penal sections the
sentence of imprisonment of 6 months may be reduced to the period already
undergone, maintaining the sentence of fine intact.
9. Accordingly, the jail sentence is reduced and the sentence of fine amount
is maintained. The appellant is on bail, his personal bonds and bail bonds be
discharged. The order of the trial Court regarding disposal of the property shall
be intact. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed.
10. Record of the trial Court be sent back along with copy of the judgment.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
Akm
