Madhya Pradesh High Court
Monu Ahirwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:45504
1 CRA-7235-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B. P. SHARMA
ON THE 16th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 7235 of 2018
MONU AHIRWAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Vikesh Pratap Singh - Advocate for appellant.
Shri Deepak Tiwari - 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 06.09.2018 passed by Special Judge (NDPS Act), Bhopal in
Special Case No. 9600019/2017 whereby the appellant has been
convicted for the offence punishable under Section 8 read with Section
20(B) (2B) of NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years and
fine of Rs.1,00,000/- with default stipulation.
2. Relevant facts, briefly stated are that on an information
received from the informant, on 09.03.2017 the police party intercepted
the appellant and from his possession 18.50 kgs of ganja was seized and
thereafter FIR bearing Crime No.119/2017 was registered against the
present appellant at Police Station Chola Mandir District Bhopal for
commission of offence punishable under Section 8/20 NDPS Act. After
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:45504
2 CRA-7235-2018
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) (2B) 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)(2B) 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 2017 i.e. almost 8
years ago. The appellant has already served 5 years 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
recorded by the Trial Court and has submitted that after appreciating the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:45504
3 CRA-7235-2018
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) (2B) 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 8 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 2017 i.e. almost 8 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.
9. Appellant is directed to deposit the fine amount as per the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:45504
4 CRA-7235-2018
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
