Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nasruddin vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 May, 2024
Author: Prem Narayan Singh
Bench: Prem Narayan Singh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH
ON THE 21 st OF MAY, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5507 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
NASRUDDIN S/O SABUDDIN PATEL, AGE: 30 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: LABOUR, R/O: VILLAGE JAKUKHEDA,
POLICE STATION MANPUR, DISTRICT INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI VIVEK SINGH - ADVOCATE.)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, THROUGH STATION
HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION CHANDAN NAGAR,
INDORE, DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI SURENDRA GUPTA - ADVOCATE APPEARING ON BEHALF OF
ADVOCATE GENERAL.)
Th is appeal coming on for direction this day, th e court passed the
following:
JUDGMENT
With consent, the matter is heard finally.
2. This criminal appeal is preferred under Section 374 of Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 by the appellant being aggrieved by judgment dated
30.04.2024 passed by Special Judge (under NDPS Act), Indore District Indore
(MP) in Special Sessions Trial No.700014 of 2016 whereby the appellant has
been convicted for offence punishable under Section 8 (c) read with Section 20
(b) (ii) (B) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (herein
after referred to as the Act) and sentenced to undergo three years rigorous
imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- along with default stipulation.
3. As per the prosecution story, on 03.04.2016 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 as well as another co-accused Anar Ji S/o
Bapu Patel and there is a total recovery of 9 kilogram of ganja from their
possession and police arrested the appellant and co-accused.
4. The learned trial Court, after considering the evidence and material
available on record has convicted the appellant, as stated above in para No.1.
5. 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 merit 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 approximately two
years and twenty five days custody period. 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 eight years, therefore, he prayed that the appeal be partly allowed
and the sentence awarded to the appellant be reduced to the period already
undergone.
6. 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.30,000/- to
Rs.1,00,000/-. As well as, in the case of Labhchand vs. State of M.P. passed
i n CRA No.15379/2023 and Nitesh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh,
passed in CRA No. 15614/2023 which were decided on 16.01.2023 wherein
the appeals were partly allowed and the sentence under Section 8(b)/20(a)(i) of
the NDPS Act awarded to the appellants were reduced to two years R.I. from
04 years by maintaining the fine of Rs.50,000/-.
7 . Learned counsel for the respondent - State of Madhya Pradesh 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.
8. I have considered rival contentions of the parties and perused the record.
9. So for as the contentions on merit 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 trial Court has well considered the material available
on record, hence, no infirmity is found in the impugned order of conviction
passed by the trial Court, accordingly, the same is upheld.
10. Insofar as the sentence is concerned, learned counsel for the appellant has
alternatively prayed only on the part of sentence and submitted that since the
appellant has already suffered approximately two years and twenty five days of
h is jail incarceration out of three years rigorous imprisonment, he may be
released only with the undergone sentence by enhancing the fine amount.
11. 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 person to the period already undergone in the cases where the quantity
of the contraband is found to be of non-commercial or less than the commercial
quantity.
12. On this aspect, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of R. Kumaravel vs.
Inspector of Police NIB CID (CRA No.1056/2019) decided on 15.07.2019
has observed as under:-
"A s 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."
13. 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 (M.P.) 1645 (CRA No.426/2000), Bhagwat
Patel Vs. State of M.P. 2022 Law Suit 789 (CRA No.674/2022), Munna
@ Munnu Pandit Vs. State of M.P., 2022 Law Suit 789 (CRA
No.2494/2022) the co-ordinate Bench have reduced the sentences of the
accused persons respectively in non-commercial quantities. In the case of
Kamal (supra), the co-ordinate Bench has reduced the punishment to
undergone for approximately two years out of five years for a non-commercial
quantity, in the case of Baba @ Akash Sonkar (supra), reduced the sentence
to 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 the case of Munna (supra) in seven months.
14. In view of the aforesaid, so far as the sentence is considered, it seems that
the appellant has suffered approximately two years and twenty five days of his
jail incarceration out of three years R.I.. That apart. the appellant has suffered
the ordeal of criminal case since 2016. 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 coordinate bench of this court, h a s been
considered.
15. 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, this Court finds it expedient to partly allow this
appeal. However, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, sentence
already undergone would be sufficient by maintaining the fine amount to meet
the ends of justice.
16. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is partly allowed and the sentence
under Section 8 (c) read with Section 20 (b) (ii) (B) of the Act awarded to the
appellant is hereby reduced to the period already undergone by enhancing the
fine from Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand only) to Rs.25,000/- (rupees twenty
five thousand only). In case of failure to deposit the fine amount, the appellant
shall further undergo for three months simple imprisonment.
17. The appellant is in jail. The bail bond (if any) of the appellant shall be
discharged after depositing of the enhanced fine amount. Fine amount, if
already deposited, shall be adjusted.
18. The judgment of learned trial Court regarding disposal of the seized
property stands affirmed.
19. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary
compliance.
IA No.7476 of 2024, first application under Section 389 (1) of Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to
appellant Nasruddin S/o Sabuddin Patel, stands disposed off.
(PREM NARAYAN SINGH)
JUDGE
rcp
