Madhya Pradesh High Court
Badri Prasad Chaturvedi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 February, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 22 nd OF FEBRUARY, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 67 of 2007
BETWEEN:-
BADRI PRASAD CHATURVEDI S/O SHIVSAHAY
CHATURVEDI, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, DURGA CHOWK
BHANTAILAYYA CHIDAMILAL RAIKWAR KA HOUSE
JABALPU (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY MS SEEMA SAHU - ADVOCATE AS AMICUS CURIAE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. P.S. KOTWALI
DISTT. JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI SOMESH GUPTA - PANEL LAWYER)
Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h 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 Special Judge (NDPS) Act Jabalpur, in Special Case
No.30/2005 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Sections 8/20(b)
(2)/b of NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo one year RI and fine of Rs.
1000/-and in default, to further undergo one month RI.
2. As none appeared on behalf of the appellant, Ms Seems Sahu, 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
18.04.2005, on receiving an information from an informant, police of concerned
P.S. seized 1.800 gram ganja from the possession of appellant.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that from the evidence on
record, the appellant is 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. There was no mens ria behind the incident so a liberal view
of the point of sentence be taken by the Court, so she 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. Learned trial Judge after considering the statements of the witnesses by
judgment dated 29.12.2006 convicted the appellant under Sections 8/20(b)(2)/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)(2)/b of NDPS Act is upheld.
7. However, looking to the facts that the incident is of the year 2005 since
then the appellant is facing mental agony, the appellant remained in custody for
three months and three days (from 19.04.2005 to 22.07.2005). Appellant was
of 59 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)(2)/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 (three months and three 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.
8. Record of the trial Court be sent back along with copy of the judgment.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
L.R. signed by LALIT
Digitally
SINGH RANA
Date: 2024.03.06
18:27:23 +05'30'
