Ballu Singh vs The State Of M.P.
2025 Latest Caselaw 11056 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Ballu Singh vs The State Of M.P. on 12 November, 2025

Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla

Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla

                                                               1                          CRA-9758-2024
                                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                      AT INDORE
                                                      CRA No. 9758 of 2024
                                                    (BALLU SINGH Vs THE STATE OF M.P. )



                           Dated : 12-11-2025

Shri Mohit Pandya - Advocate for the appellant.

Shri H.S.Rathore - GA for State.

Heard on IA No.10490/2025, which is the second application for suspension of jail sentence.

The first application was withdrawn on 21.4.2025 after arguing at

length.

Counsel for appellant argued that as per the prosecution case, 3 quintal 41 kg ganja is said to have been recovered from him. He argued that the prosecution could not prove that the land from which the ganja is said to have been seized belongs to him. He refers to his submission recorded in para 41 of the judgment.

Per contra, learned counsel for the State argued that prosecution case was that huge quantity of ganja leaves were seized from the possession of the appellant. He argued that the case of the prosecution is not that the

appellant was cultivating ganja on the said land.

After hearing learned counsel for parties and on going through the record, this Court finds that the prosecution has successfully proved that a huge quantity of ganja has been seized from the possession of the appellant. It would not be material and relevant whether the land/field belongs to the appellant or not. The testimony of PW.8 Patvari can be referred which has

2 CRA-9758-2024 been further corroborated by the testimony of PW.5 Suresh Ishke.

On consideration of testimohny of these witnesses, the trial court has recorded a finding in para 42 that the prosecution has successfully established that the aforesaid quantity of contraband was seized from the possession of the appellant. The commercial quantity of the contraband ganja is 20 kg, whereas in the present case, the alleged quantity of contraband seized from the possession of the appellant is 3 quintal 41 kg, which is a huge quantity.

In view of the aforesaid, this court does not find a case for suspension of jail sentence.

IA No.10490/2025 is dismissed.

                                (VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)                         (BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
                                        JUDGE                                        JUDGE
                           VM