Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vijay vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 April, 2025
Author: Prem Narayan Singh
Bench: Prem Narayan Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11017
1 CRA-9733-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH
ON THE 25th OF APRIL, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 9733 of 2024
VIJAY
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Santosh Kumar Meena - advocate for the appellant.
Shri Tarun Pagare, learned Govt. Advocate for the State.
ORDER
This criminal appeal is preferred under Section 415 of BNSS, 2023
(374 of Cr.P.C.) by the appellant being aggrieved by judgment dated
6.8.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), District
Mandsaur (M.P.) in Special Case No.19/2017, whereby the appellant has
been convicted for offence punishable under Section 8 /15 of Narcotic Drugs
and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act')
and sentenced to undergo 04 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of
Rs.10,000/- along with default stipulation.
2. As per prosecution story, on 27.8.2017 upon the source information
that the appellant/accused having Poppy Straw is standing near MIT square,
the police team reached the spot and 17 KG 500 Grams Poppy Straw were
seized from the possession of the appellant/accused and has arrested the
accused.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11017
2 CRA-9733-2024
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 one year's custody period out of four years R.I 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 seven 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11017
3 CRA-9733-2024
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 one year of his jail
incarceration out of four years 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11017
4 CRA-9733-2024
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 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11017
5 CRA-9733-2024
12. In view of the aforesaid, so far as the sentence is considered, it
seems that the appellant has suffered more than one year's custody period out
of four years R.I. 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.
13. In view of the aforesaid legal proposition regarding non-
commercial quantity, custody period suffered by 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 of 'the Act' awarded to the appellant is hereby
reduced to the period already undergone by enhancing the fine from
Rs.10,000/- 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11017
6 CRA-9733-2024
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.
(PREM NARAYAN SINGH)
JUDGE
VD
