Madhya Pradesh High Court
Hanumant Kushwaha vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52313
1 CRA-1159-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B. P. SHARMA
ON THE 15 th OF OCTOBER, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1159 of 2011
HANUMANT KUSHWAHA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Aseem Dixit - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Satypal Chadar, GA for respondent/State.
ORDER
This appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2) of the Cr.P.C. r/w Section
415 of B.N.S.S. against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
18.3.2011 passed in Special Case No.03/2010 by Special Judge (NDPS),
Chhatarpur whereby learned Judge has held the appellant guilty of the offence
punishable under Section 20 (a) of NDPS Act and sentenced him to undergo R.I.
for 5 years and fine of Rs.25,000/- in default of payment of fine appellant to
undergo RI for 2 years.
2. As per the prosecution, 44 plants of cannabis, total weight of the same
was approximately 275 grms were recovered from the agricultural field of the
appellant. After completion of all formalities, Crime No.16/10 at Police Station
Bameetha District Chhatarpur under Section 20 (a) of NDPS Act. After
completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the competent Court.
3. After recording the statements of prosecution witnesses and
appreciating the evidence led by parties, learned trial Court found the appellant
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52313
2 CRA-1159-2011
guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 20 (a) of NDPS Act
and sentenced him as mentioned above. Being aggrieved by the impugned
judgment, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
4. At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does
not want to challenge the conviction of the appellant recorded under Section 20 (a)
of NDPS Act by the Trial Court, but has prayed for reduction of jail sentence. It is
submitted that the incident had taken place in the year 2010 i.e. almost 15 years
ago. It is also submitted that the appellant has already served out more than
8 months incarceration so far. In view of the above, it is prayed that appellant's
jail sentence may be reduced/modified to the extent of period already undergone
by him as no fruitful purpose would get served by sending him behind the bars
again.
5. Learned counsel for the State has supported the findings recorded by
the Trial Court and has submitted that after appreciating the evidence adduced by
the prosecution, the Trial Court has rightly found the appellant guilty for the
aforesaid offence and therefore prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of entire
record of the case, I am inclined to allow this appeal in part upon finding some
force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant.
9. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and the
period of jail sentence already undergone by the appellant which is more than 8
months and that the appellant was facing trial since 2010, I am of the considered
view that the ends of justice would be met if the appellant is sentenced for the
period already undergone by him by enhancing the fine amount.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52313
3 CRA-1159-2011
10. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned conviction is
hereby maintained. However, the jail sentence imposed on appellant is reduced to
the period already undergone by him and the fine of Rs.25,000/- as imposed upon
the appellant is enhanced to Rs.35,000/- which shall be deposited before the Trial
Court within a period of two months. The fine amount already deposited by the
appellant be adjusted. In default of payment of fine amount within the stipulated
period, the appellant shall suffer the jail sentence as awarded by the trial Court in
default of payment of fine. Appellant is on bail. His bail bond is discharged.
11. With the aforesaid modification, the present criminal appeal stands
partly allowed and disposed of.
12. Let a copy of this order along with record be sent to the court below for
information and necessary compliance.
Certified copy as per Rules.
(B. P. SHARMA)
JUDGE
SM
