Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ranjeet Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 October, 2024
Author: Prem Narayan Singh
Bench: Prem Narayan Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:29166
1 CRA-9064-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH
ON THE 4 th OF OCTOBER, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 9064 of 2024
RANJEET SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Appearance:
Shri Subodh Choudhary - advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Kshitij Vyas - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
HEARD ON : 11.09.2024
PRONOUNCED ON : 04.10.202 4
This appeal having been heard and reserved for orders, coming on for
pronouncement this day, the court passed the following:
ORDER
This criminal appeal is preferred under Section 374 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the appellant being aggrieved by judgment
dated 11.07.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act),
District Manasa (M.P.), Neemuch in Special Case No.11/2018 whereby
the appellant has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 8
/15(b) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and sentenced to undergo one year
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:29166
2 CRA-9064-2024
rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.20,000/- along with default
stipulation.
2. As per the prosecution story, on 30.06.2018 on the basis of
secret information, after complying with the necessary formalities,
police team reached on the spot, apprehended the pickup van vehicle
No.MP-44-G.A.0638 and caught the appellant Ranjeet Singh S/o.
Govardhan Rajput. On being searched it was found that a white syntax
tank filled with poppy husk (doda chura) was being illegally
transported. Police recovered the alleged contraband after due
compliance of the requisite formalities and on being weighed it was
found that total 41 Kgs and 500 grams of poppy husk was being illegally
transported, so also police arrested the appellant.
3. The learned trial Court, after considering the evidence and
material available on record has convicted the appellant, as stated above
in para No.1.
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 more than six months custody
period out of one year R.I awarded by learned trial Court. The appellant
is having regard to all circumstances which resulted in appellant's
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:29166
3 CRA-9064-2024
conviction and further keeping in view the fact that the appellant was
facing the trial before the concerned Court for more than six 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. Learned counsel for the respondent/State 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.
6. I have considered rival contentions of the parties and perused
the record.
7. 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 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.
8. In so far 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 more than six
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:29166
4 CRA-9064-2024
months of his jail incarceration out of one year rigorous imprisonment,
he may be released only with the undergone sentence by enhancing the
fine amount.
9. 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.
10. 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:-
"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."
11. Further, on this aspect, the case of Mangilal Vs. Central
Narcotics Bureau [2006 Law Suit (MP) 111] is worth referring here
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:29166
5 CRA-9064-2024
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 LawSuit 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.
12. In view of the aforesaid, so far as the sentence is considered, it
seems that the appellant has suffered more than six months of his jail
incarceration out of one year R.I. That apart, the appellant has suffered
the ordeal of criminal case since 2018. 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,
has been considered.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:29166
6 CRA-9064-2024
13. In view of the aforesaid legal proposition regarding non-
commercial quantity so also considering the fact that there is no criminal
record / antecedent 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 enhancing the fine amount to meet the ends of justice.
14. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is partly allowed and the
sentence under Section 8/15(b) of 'the Act' awarded to the appellant is
hereby reduced to the period already undergone by enhancing the fine
from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) . In case of
failure to deposit the fine amount, the appellant shall further undergo for
one month simple imprisonment.
15. 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.
16. The judgment of learned trial Court regarding disposal of the
seized property stands affirmed.
17. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for
necessary compliance.
18. Pending I.As. if any, stands closed.
19. With the aforesaid, the present appeal stands disposed off.
Certified copy, as per rules.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:29166
7 CRA-9064-2024
(PREM NARAYAN SINGH)
JUDGE
sumathi
