Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajmal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 April, 2025
Author: Prem Narayan Singh
Bench: Prem Narayan Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:10735
1 CRA-10068-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH
ON THE 23rd OF APRIL, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 10068 of 2023
RAJMAL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Abhishek Rathore - advocate for the petitioner [P-1].
Shri Jayesh Yadav - Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER
With consent of the parties, heard finally.
2. This criminal appeal is preferred under section 374 of Cr.P.C. by the
appellant being disgruntled by the judgment dated 27.07.2023, passed by
learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), District Neemuch (M.P.) in Spl. Case
(NDPS) 02/2017, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 8/18 of NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo 04
years R.I. with fine of Rs.50,000/- with default stipulation.
3. As per the prosecution story on 29.01.2017, the police has received a
discreet information that one person is sitting in the waiting room at Tamoti
Fanta to give illegal narcotic drug opium to an outside smuggler. After
completing the necessary formalities, police team reached the spot and
caught the accused. On being searched, 2 Kgs. 40 grams of opium was
recovered from his possession. Thereafter, the police registered the FIR
against the appellant.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:10735
2 CRA-10068-2023
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 merits and did not assail the findings of conviction part
of the judgment. He confines his arguments on the point of sentence. Counsel
for the appellant submits that the appellant has suffered more than 1 year and
10 months of his incarceration out of the total sentence so awarded by
learned trial Court. 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 08
years, therefore, he prayed that the appeal be partly allowed and the sentence
awarded to the appellant be reduced to the period already undergone by
enhancing the fine amount or as the Court may deems fit in the interest of
justice.
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 the sentence to the period already
undergone by the appellant i.e. 09 months out of 10 years. Similarly, in the
case of Tulsiram vs. State of M.P. passed in CRA No.12105/2023 decided
by this Bench on 01.12.2023 wherein sentence was reduced to the period
already undergone i.e. six months out of four years of imprisonment by
enhancing the fine from Rs.30,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/-. Therefore, counsel
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:10735
3 CRA-10068-2023
prayed that the sentence of the appellant be reduced to the period already
undergone by enhancing the fine amount.
7. 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.
8. I have considered rival contentions of the parties and perused the
record.
9. 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.
10. 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 1 year and 10 months
of his incarceration and since, there is no minimum sentence prescribed, he
may be released only with the undergone sentence or may reduce his
sentence to the minimum extent by enhancing the fine amount.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:10735
4 CRA-10068-2023
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 persons 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:-
"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."
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.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:10735
5 CRA-10068-2023
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.
14. In view of the aforesaid, so far as the sentence is considered, it
seems that the appellant has suffered custody of more than 1 year and 10
months. That apart, the appellant has suffered the ordeal of criminal case
since 2017. 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.
15. In view of the aforesaid legal proposition regarding non-
commercial quantity or the punishment on higher side, this Court finds it
expedient to partly allow this appeal. However, looking to the facts and
circumstances of the case, no other criminal antecedents registered against
him as well as the appellant has already undergone more than 1 year and 10
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:10735
6 CRA-10068-2023
months of his custody, this Court finds it expedite to reduce the sentence of
the appellant to the period already undergone by enchanting the fine amount
from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/- to meet the ends of justice.
16. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is partly allowed and the
sentence under Sections 8/18 of NDPS Act awarded to the appellant is hereby
reduced to the period already undergone by enhancing the fine amount from
Rs.50,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/-. In case of failure to deposit the fine amount, the
appellant shall further undergo for two months simple imprisonment.
17. The appellant is in jail, he be set at liberty forthwith immediately
subject to deposit the fine amount.
18. The bail bond (if any) of the appellant shall be discharged after
depositing of the fine amount. Fine amount, if already deposited, shall be
adjusted.
19. The judgment of learned trial Court regarding disposal of the seized
property stands affirmed.
20. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for
necessary compliance.
21. Pending I.As. if any, stands closed.
22. With the aforesaid, the present appeal stands disposed off.
Certified copy, as per rules.
(PREM NARAYAN SINGH)
JUDGE
sumathi
