Bhura vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 3341 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Bhura vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 February, 2024

                                   1
 IN     THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                       AT JABALPUR
                          BEFORE
         HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
                    ON THE 5 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
                  CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2349 of 2008

BETWEEN:-
BHURA S/O DASADEEN SONKAR, AGED ABOUT 38
YEARS, R/O 482, KRIPAL CHOWK, MADAN MAHAL AT
PRESENT GURANDI BAZAR,BELBAG,PS. BELBAG,DIST.
JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                              .....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI NARENDRA LODHI- ADVOCATE AS AMICUS CURIAE)

AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA                 PRADESH JABALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                            .....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI MAINISH MUKHARIYA - PANEL LAWYER FOR THE STATE)

      Th is appeal coming on for hearing. this day, th e court passed the
following:
                                 JUDGMENT

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 Specil Judge (NDPS) Act Jabalpur, in Special Case No.49/2006 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Sections 8/20(b) of NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo one year RI and fine of Rs. 1000/-and in default, to further undergo three months RI.

2. As none appeared on behalf of the appellant, Mr. Narendra Lodhi, Advocate who is present in the Court, has been requested to assist the Court on behalf of the appellant as amicus curiae.

3. The facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal in brief are that on 01.09.2006, on receiving an information from an informant, police of concerned P.S. seized 1 kg and 200 gram ganja from the shop of appellant.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that from the evidence on record, the appellants are entitled to be acquitted, alternatively, he submits that in fact and circumstances of the case, the sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone. He further submits that during the trial, the appellant remained in custody for 2 months and 2 days. The incident is of the year 2006 since then the appellant is facing mental agony. At the time of incident, the appellant was of 38 years of age. He has no criminal antecedent. He is the first

offenders. As per the record, they never misused the conditions of bail. There was no mens ria behind the incident so a liberal view of the point of sentence be taken by the Court, so he prayed that the sentence be reduced to period already undergone.

5. Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer submitted that the findings of learned trial Court does not call for any interference. Court is at liberty to consider the matter on the point of sentence.

6. After considering the arguments of both the parties and after perusal of record, it appears that FIR was lodged at P.S. Belbag District Jabalpur on 01.09.2006 against the appellant which was registered as Crime No.587/2006 under Sections 8/20 of NDPS Act. After investigation, the charge sheet was filed.

7. Learned trial Judge after considering the statements of the witnesses by judgment dated 16.10.2008 convicted the appellant under Sections 8/20(B) of NDPS Act and sentenced as stated herein above, however, t h e findings

recorded by the learned trial Judge are based on due appreciation of evidence and do not require any interference. The judgment of conviction under Sections 8/20(B) of NDPS Act is upheld.

8. However, looking to the facts that the incident is of the year 2006 since then the appellant is facing mental agony, the appellant remained in custody for two months and two days. Appellant was of 38 years of age at the time of incident. The prosecution has not brought any past criminal antecedents of the appellant on record and there is no minimum sentence has been prescribed under Sections 8/20(B) of NDPS Act at that time, I deem it proper to reduce the jail sentence of the appellant to the extent of the period which he has already undergone and accordingly, the jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone (2 months and 2 days) by him and the sentence of fine amount is maintained. Order of the trial Court regarding disposal of the property is also maintained. The appellant is on bail, his personal bond and bail bond be discharged. Accordingly the appeal is partly allowed.

9. Record of the trial Court be sent back along with copy of the judgment.

(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI) JUDGE L.R.