Madhya Pradesh High Court
Raju vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 January, 2025
Author: Prem Narayan Singh
Bench: Prem Narayan Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:410
1 CRA-11968-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH
ON THE 12th OF DECEMBER, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 11968 of 2024
RAJU
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Palash Choudhary - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Anand Bhatt - Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER
HEARD ON : 12.12.2024
PRONOUNCED ON : 07.01.2025
JUDGMENT
Appellant has preferred this criminal appeal under section 415 of
BNSS, 2023 (374 of Cr.P.C.) being aggrieved by the judgment dated
18.10.2024, passed by learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), District Mandsaur
in Special Case No.SCNDPS/16/2017, whereby the appellant has been
convicted for the offence punishable under Section 8/18(b) of Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and sentenced to undergo 04
years R.I. with fine of Rs.25,000/- with default stipulation.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:410
2 CRA-11968-2024
2. As per the prosecution story on 01.03.2017 on the basis of secret
information, police intercepted appellant and his motorcycle bearing
Registration AP 29 AG 0308 at Pagariya Petrol Pump and in search, 1 kg of
Opium was recovered from a black bag which was being illegally transported
from Mandsaur to Neemuch. On the basis of which case was registered
against 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 findings 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 04 years R.I . awarded by learned
trial Court, as such there is no minimum sentence prescribed in this regard.
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 7 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:410
3 CRA-11968-2024
supported the judgment and order by submitting that there is clear evidence
against the appellant, therefore, he prays for dismissal of the appeals.
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
memos 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 have alternatively prayed only on the part of sentence and
submitted that since the appellant has already suffered more than six months
custody period out of 04 years R.I., he may be released only with the
undergone sentence or may reduce his sentence to the minimum extent by
enhancing the fine amount.
9. In this regard, earlier also the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:410
4 CRA-11968-2024
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.
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 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:410
5 CRA-11968-2024
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 custody period
out of 04 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, this Court finds it expedient to partly allow this appeal.
However, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, in this case, 1
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:410
6 CRA-11968-2024
kg of opium is said to be seized from appellant and no other criminal
antecedents registered against him, this Court finds it expedite to reduce the
sentence of the appellant to the period already undergone by him by
enhancing the fine amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to meet the ends of justice.
14. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is partly allowed and the
sentence under Sections 8/18(b) of NDPS Act awarded to the appellant is
hereby reduced the period already undergone by him by enhancing the fine
from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/- . In case of failure to deposit the fine
amount, the appellant shall further undergo for two months simple
imprisonment.
15. The appellant is in jail. He shall be set at liberty to release
forthwith if not required in any other case.
16. The bail bond (if any) of the appellant shall be discharged after
completion of aforesaid sentence and depositing of the enhanced fine
amount. Fine amount, if already deposited, shall be adjusted.
17. The judgment of learned trial Court regarding disposal of the
seized property stands affirmed.
18. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for
necessary compliance.
19. Pending I.As. if any, stands closed.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:410
7 CRA-11968-2024
20. With the aforesaid, the present appeal stands disposed off.
Certified copy, as per rules.
(PREM NARAYAN SINGH)
JUDGE
sumathi
