Madhya Pradesh High Court
Radheshyam Shah vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 April, 2025
Author: Dinesh Kumar Paliwal
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Paliwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:16967
1 CRA-1105-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1105 of 2025
RADHESHYAM SHAH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Prakhar Naveriya, counsel for the appellant.
Shri Amit Sharma, G.A. for respondent/State.
.....................................................................................................................................................
Reserved on : 02.04.2025
Pronounced on : 08.04.2025.
ORDER
This criminal appeal under Section 415(2) of BNSS, 2023 has been
preferred by appellant Radheshyam Shah against the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 20.01.2025 passed by Special Judge
(N.D.P.S.) District Singrauli in SC (NDPS) No.15 of 2023 (State of M.P. Vs.
Radheshyam Shah & Another), whereby learned Special Judge has convicted
the appellant for commission of offence under Section 8/20(B) of Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 as appellant alongwith co-
accused was found in possession of 1.550 Kg contraband (Ganja). He been
sentenced to undergo RI for 05 years and fine of Rs.25,000/- with default
stipulation.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 01.04.2023, ASI Pappu
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:16967
2 CRA-1105-2025
Singh (PW-4) posted in Police Station Baidhan received information from
the informant that appellant Radheshyam R/o Jamua has kept contraband
Ganja in a white coloured plastic bag and is preparing small packets of the
same for sale. Information was given to senior officials. On instructions,
Head Constable Dharmendra Kol brought two independent witnesses,
namely Vinod Singh and Ramnaresh Shah. He made them understand with
the informer's information and prepared information Rojnamcha Sanha
(Ex.P/18). Since Town Inspector was not available in Headquarter, he made
the entry in this regard vide Ex.P/19. Thereafter, the police force
alongwith witnesses and investigation kit reached at the spot disclosed by
the informant and apprehended the accused.
3. Accused was served with notice (Exhibit-P/3) under Section 50 of the
Act. He was made to understand about his legal right to be searched before a
Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. However, he refused to exercise the said
right and stated that police may conduct the search. In search, narcotic
substance (Ganja) was found in white coloured plastic bag. In this regard,
Search Panchnama (Exhibit-P/5) and seizure Panchnama (ExhibitpP/7) were
prepared. On smelling, testing and on the basis of experience, the seized item
was found to be cannabis (Ganja). Identification memo (Exhibit-P/6) for
seized contraband was prepared.
4. The contraband was mixed homogeneously and Panchnama Ex.P/8 was
prepared. On weighing the same, it was found to be 1.550 Kg in weight.
Weighing panchnama (Exhibit-P/10) was prepared. Thereafter, sealed sample
Panchnama (Ex.P/11) was prepared. White coloured plastic bag having red
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:16967
3 CRA-1105-2025
lines in which accused Radheshyam had kept contraband Ganja was seized
and seizure memo (Exhibit-P/12) was prepared. He was arrested and arrest
memo (Exhibit-P/13) was prepared and information regarding his arrest was
given to his family members vide Exhibit-P/29. Spot map (Ex.P/49) was also
prepared. After coming-over to police station - Baidhan F.I.R. No.519/2023
(Ex.P/33) for offence under Section 8/20B and 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act was
registered. The seized narcotic substance was sent to the Director, Forensic
Science Laboratory, Sagar through the Superintendent of Police, Singrauli
vide Ex.P/46. Entire proceedings were registered in the Rojnamcha kept in
the Police Station as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-54. As per the report of FSL, Sagar, the
seized article was found to be Ganja (Ex.C/1).
5. On completion of investigation, appellant/accused was charge-sheeted
for commission of offence under Section 8/20(B) read with section 29 of the
Act. Charges were framed by the learned trial Court. Appellant refuted the
charges and claimed to be tried.
6. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 11 witnesses viz.
Independent witnesses, namely, Vinod Singh (P.W.1), Ramnaresh Shah
(P.W.2), Reader Anand Bahadur Singh (P.W.3), ASI Pappu Singh (P.W.4),
Head Constable Nandkishore Bagri (P.W.5), Photographer Devi Prasad
Vishwakarma (P.W.6), ASI Sajeet Singh (P.W.7), Head Constable
Dharmendra Prasad Kol (P.W.8), witness of memorandum Suresh Shah
(P.W.9), Ankit Kumar Shah (P.10) and ASI Upendramani Sharma
(P.W.11) No witness was examined in defence. Prosecution adduced and
exhibited documents as Exhibit-P/1 to Exhibit-P/41.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:16967
4 CRA-1105-2025
7. Learned trial Court, after hearing both the parties, found the prosecution
case proved for commission of offence under Section 8/20B of the N.D.P.S.
Act and convicted the appellant/accused for commission of aforesaid offence
under N.D.P.S. Act as shown herein-above in paragraph-1.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire
record.
9. At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that
appellant do not want to challenge his conviction for commission of
aforesaid offence as recorded by learned trial Court, but has prayed for
reduction of the jail sentence as appellant has already undergone
imprisonment for a period of almost 02 years so far while 05 years
imprisonment and fine of Rs.25,000/-has been awarded by the learned trial
Court.
10. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has supported the findings of
conviction and order of sentence as recorded by learned trial Court and has
prayed for not to reduce the jail sentence as 1.550 Kg contraband (cannabis)
has been seized from possession of the appellant/accused. Thus, he has
prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
11. Having scanned the entire evidence adduced on record by the
prosecution, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the impugned
judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by the Court below
and, as such, same is upheld. However, taking note of the fact that
appellant/accused has already undergone imprisonment of almost 2 years ,
this Court deems it fit to reduce the jail sentence from R.I 05 years to the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:16967
5 CRA-1105-2025
period already undergone by him in this case so far alongwith fine imposed
by the trial court.
12. Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part and sentence is modified
with the imprisonment for the period already undergone by him, subject to
depositing the fine amount imposed by the trial court. In this view of the
matter, I.A.No. 2246/2025 an application under section 430(1) of
BNSS,2023 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant also
stands disposed off.
13. Registry/trial Court is directed to prepare super-session warrant/release
warrant and to send the same to the Superintendent of jail/Jail authorities
concerned with a direction that appellant Radheshyam Shah be released in
this case forthwith, if he is not required in any other case
14. Learned trial Court is directed to ensure the aforesaid compliance.
15 . The order of the Trial Court regarding disposal of the property is
hereby affirmed.
16. Let record of the Trial Court along with copy of this judgment be sent
down to the trial Court concerned for information and necessary compliance
through Session Judge, Singrauli (MP).
(DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL)
JUDGE
MKL
