Madhya Pradesh High Court
Narendra Jhariya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:44982
1 CRA-1135-2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B. P. SHARMA
ON THE 15th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1135 of 2006
NARENDRA JHARIYA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Anubhav Singhal - Advocate for appellant.
Shri Pankaj Raj - Pl for the respondent/State.
ORDER
This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C., 1973 has
been filed assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence
dated 19.06.2006 passed by Special Judge (NDPS Act), Mandla in
Special Case No.22/2005 whereby the appellant has been convicted for
the offence punishable under Section 8 read with Section 20(B) and
11(B) of NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo RI for 4 years and fine of
Rs.2000/-, with default stipulations.
2. Relevant facts, briefly stated are that on an information
received from the informant, on 31.10.2005 the police party intercepted
the appellant and from his possession 2.50 kgs of ganja was seized and
thereafter FIR bearing Crime No.231/2003 was registered against the
present appellant at Police Station Mahrajpur District Mandla for
commission of offence punishable under Section 8/20 NDPS Act. After
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:44982
2 CRA-1135-2006
completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the competent
Court. Charge under Sections 8/20 NDPS Act was framed against the
present appellant. Accused/appellant refuted the charges and claimed to
be tried. Statements of the witnesses were recorded.
3. After recording the statements of prosecution witnesses and
appreciating the evidence led by the parties, learned Trial Court found
the appellant guilty for commission of offence punishable under
Section 8 read with Section 20 (B) and 11(B) of NDPS Act and
sentenced him as mentioned preceding paragraph No.1. Being aggrieved
by the impugned in the judgment, the appellant has preferred this
criminal appeal before this Court.
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 8 read with Section 20(B) and 11(B)of the
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 2006
i.e. almost 19 years ago. The appellant has already served 210 days
incarceration so far. Therefore, 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:44982
3 CRA-1135-2006
recorded by the Trial Court and has submitted that after appreciating the
evidence produced by the prosecution, the Trial Court has rightly found
the appellant guilty for the aforesaid offence and has prayed for dismissal
of the appeal.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
impugned judgment and record of the Trial Court.
7. On appreciation of the evidence on record, I do not find any
infirmity or illegality in findings of conviction recorded by the Trial
Court. Therefore, findings of appellant's conviction for the alleged
offence under Section 8 read with Section 20 (B) and 11(B) of the NDPS
Act are upheld.
8. So far as the prayer for reduction in jail sentence is
concerned, it cannot be overlooked that appellant is facing the agony for
the last 19 years. Therefore, having taken into consideration all the facts
and circumstances of the case, the custodial period already undergone by
the appellant in jail and also the fact that the incident had taken place in
the year 2006 i.e. almost 19 years ago, I am of the view that ends of
justice would meet if jail sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to
the period already undergone by him. Thus, so far as the jail sentence of
the appellant is concerned, it is modified and is reduced to the period
already undergone by him by enhancing the fine amount from Rs. 2000/-
to Rs. 10,000/-.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:44982
4 CRA-1135-2006
9. Appellant is directed to deposit the fine amount as per the
impugned judgment 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 the fine amount as per the impugned order
of the trial Court is not deposited within the stipulated period, the
appellant would surrender himself to serve out the entire jail sentence as
awarded by the learned Trial Court with default stipulations.
10. Appellant is on bail, his bail bond shall stand discharged.
11. This appeal is partly allowed and disposed of with the
aforesaid modification in the sentence.
12. A copy of this order along with record of the Trial Court be
sent immediately to the Court trial concerned for information and
necessary action.
Certified copy as per rules
(B. P. SHARMA)
JUDGE
PG
