Madhya Pradesh High Court
Satya Vagarti vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50575
1 CRA-920-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B. P. SHARMA
ON THE 7 th OF OCTOBER, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 920 of 2011
SATYA VAGARTI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Amardeep Seth - Advocate for appellants.
Shri Priyank Shandilya - Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.
ORDER
This appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 has been filed by the appellants assailing the judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 02.04.2011 passed in Special Case No.04/2010
passed by the Learned Special Judge ( NDPS Act), Chhatarpur whereby
learned Special Judge found the appellants guilty for commission of offence
punishable under Section 20(b)(ii) of NDPS Act, 1985 and directed them to
suffer R.I. for 6 years with fine of Rs.50,000/-, with default stipulation.
Cannabis weighing 4 Kg 500 gms and 4 Kg 900 gms was recovered from the
possession of the appellant No.1 & 2 respectively.
2. Relevant facts, briefly stated are that on the basis of report lodged, crime
was registered against the appellants at Police Station Civil Lines District
Chhatarpur for commission of offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii) of
NDPS Act. After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed
before the competent Court.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50575
2 CRA-920-2011
3. After recording the statements of prosecution witnesses and appreciating
the evidence led by parties, learned trial Court found the appellants guilty for
commission of offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii) of NDPS Act and
sentenced him as mentioned above. Being aggrieved with the impugned
judgment, the appellants preferred this criminal appeal before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants expressly gave up his challenge to the
findings of the trial Court so far as the conviction of the appellants is
concerned. In other words, learned counsel for the appellants accepted the
finding of conviction passed against the appellants, however, he challenged
the quantum of punishment alone. Appellants hace remained in custody for
about 1 year 7 months. Learned counsel further submitted that having regard
to all circumstances, which resulted in conviction of the appellants and
further keeping in view the fact that the appellants are facing the trial before
the concerned Court since 2010 and this appeal is also pending since 2011,
jail sentence of appellants may be reduced suitably.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that no grounds are
available for reducing the jail sentence awarded to the appellant, hence, he
prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
6. 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
appellants.
7. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants and
period of jail sentence already undergone by him, which is about 1 year 7
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50575
3 CRA-920-2011
months and that this appeal is pending since 2011, I am of the considered
view that the ends of justice would be met, if the appellants are sentenced for
the period already undergone by them by enhancing the fine amount.
8. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned conviction is
hereby maintained. As far the jail sentence of the appellants under Section
20(b)(ii) of NDPS Act is concerned, it is modified to the period already
undergone by them by enhancing the fine amount from Rs.50,000/- to
Rs.65000/- each.
9. Thus, each of the appellant is directed to deposit the enhanced fine
amount before the trial Court within a period of two months from today. The
amount of fine, if any, already deposited be adjusted. However, it is clarified
that if fine amount is not deposited within a period of two months from
today, appellants would surrender themselves to serve out the entire jail
sentence as awarded by the learned trial Court with default stipulations.
10. With the aforesaid modification, the present criminal appeal stands
partly allowed and disposed off. The appellants being on bail, their bail
bonds stands discharged.
11. Let a copy of this order along with record be sent to the court below for
information and necessary compliance.
(B. P. SHARMA)
JUDGE
L.Raj
