Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ishwarlal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 April, 2025
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11352
1 CRA-6564-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
ON THE 30th OF APRIL, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 6564 of 2021
ISHWARLAL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Yash Pal Rathore, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Sudeep Bhargava, learned Dy.A.G for the respondent/State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Rusia
Heard finally instead of hearing the application for suspension of
sentence.
This appeal is filed against the judgment dated 02.09.2021 passed
by Additional Special Judge, Mandsaur in Special Sessions Trial
No.08/2017 whereby the appellant has been convicted under section 8(c)
read with section 21(c) of the N.D.P.S.Act, 1985 and sentenced to
undergo RI for 20 years with fine of Rs.2 lakhs; in default of payment of
fine, further RI for two years.
2. As per prosecution case on 03.09.2016 at near about 09.00
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11352
2 CRA-6564-2021
a.m police station Sitamau received discreet information that the
appellant Ishwarlal r/o Kachalia, PS Garoth, district Mandsaur is
carrying smack and travelling from Basai-Sitamau towards Gangdhar,
Rajasthan on his motorcycle bearing registration no.MP-14-MN-5692.
After entering the aforesaid information in the Rojnamchasana (Ex.P/69)
the team headed by R.P.Mishra (PW/8) reached the spot where the
appellant was apprehended and he was searched after compliance of
section 50 of the NDPS Act. On search a pink colour powder was found
and recovered from his body and on examination with the help of kit it
was found to be smack. The weight of the contraband was taken and it
was found to be 260 gms. which is commercial quantity as the non
commercial quantity is 250 gms. Thereafter an FIR was registered
against two accused persons viz. appellant Ishwarlal and co-accused
Mohanlal. They denied the charges and pleaded for trial. In trial the
prosecution examined 13 witnesses. After appreciating the evidence
came on record, the trial court has convicted the appellant as mentioned
herein above.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant
has completed almost 9 years of jail sentence, therefore, he is not
assailing the findings recorded by the trial court. He submits that the
appellant has wrongly been awarded maximum sentence of 20 years
whereas only 10 gms. excess non commercial quantity was found from
the appellant. Admittedly, the appellant is a first offender, therefore,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11352
3 CRA-6564-2021
there was no reason for inflicting maximum sentence of 20 years RI with
fine of Rs.2 lakhs. Therefore, looking to the quantity of the contraband
and the fact that he is a first offender the period of sentence be reduced
to the minimum sentence of 10 years RI and the fine from Rs.2 lakhs to
Rs.1 lakh.
4. Shri Bhargava, learned Dy.A.G opposes the aforesaid prayer
by submitting that learned trial court after considering the judgment in
the case of Ramakant Gopal Sharan Sahu vs. State of Gujarat - (2005)
Cr.L.J 1131 (SC) has rightly awarded the sentence of 20 years looking
to the fact that smack was found from the possession of the appellant.
5. Considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the
parties and the sentence part of the judgment in para-54 to 58.
Admittedly, when smack was recovered from the appellant and its
weight was taken, the polythene was not removed and including the
polythene the weight was found to be 260 gms., however, which is also
commercial quantity as the non commercial quantity is 250 gms.. The
appellant is a first offender, therefore, no reason has been assigned for
inflicting the maximum sentence of 20 years which is normally liable to
be imposed on repeated offence. Therefore, we are of the considered
opinion that the jail sentence is liable to be reduced from 20 years to 10
years which is the minimum sentence. So far as the fine amount is
concerned, we do not find any ground to reduce the same from Rs.2
lakhs to Rs.1 lakh as the appellant has not produced any material to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11352
4 CRA-6564-2021
establish his financial status.
6. In view of the above, this appeal is partly allowed and while
maintaining the conviction of the appellant under section 8(c) r/w
section 21(c) of the NDPS Act, the jail sentence is reduced from 20
years RI to 10 years RI with fine of Rs.2 lakhs with the default
stipulation as imposed by the trial Court.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
hk/
