Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Abdul Hakim @ Bhuriya vs State (2023:Rj-Jd:43040) on 11 December, 2023
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2023:RJ-JD:43040]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 506/2013
Abdul Hakim @ Bhuriya S/o Ayub Khan Pathan, B/c Muslim, R/o
Kanwa Khera, Kachhi Basti, Bhilwara Kotwali Police Station,
District Bhilwara.
(Lodged in District Jail, Bhilwara)
----Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Anil Kaviraj through VC
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, PP with
Mr. CP Marwan
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
11/12/2023
Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant under
Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 09.04.2013
passed by learned Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases, Bhilwara in
Sessions Case No.41/2006 by which the learned Judge convicted
the appellant for offence under Section 8/21(B) of NDPS Act and
sentenced him to undergo four years' R.I. alongwith a fine of
Rs.25,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo one
year's R.I.
Brief facts of the case are that on 28.09.2006, SHO, Police
Station Kotwali, Bhilwara alongwith patrolling team laid a blockade
on the Dadidham--Sagasji road. At about 3:15 PM, they saw a
person coming on a motorcycle, who tried to flee on seeing the
police party. The Police team followed the motorcycle and caught
[2023:RJ-JD:43040] (2 of 4) [CRLA-506/2013]
hold of the person. On inquiry, he disclosed his name as Abdul
Hakim @ Bhuriya, who is the appellant in this case. Upon search,
25 gms 240 mg smack was recovered from the appellant without
any valid licence and permit.
The police registered the FIR for offence under Section 8/21
NDPS Act and started investigation. After investigation, the police
filed challan against the present appellant. Thereafter, the charge
for offence under Section 8/21(B) of NDPS Act was framed by the
trial court against the appellant, who denied the charges and
claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined eleven
witnesses and various documents were also exhibited. Thereafter,
statement of appellant under section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded. No
witness was examined on the defence side.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 09.04.2013 convicted and sentenced
the appellant for offence under Section 8/21(B) of NDPS Act as
mentioned earlier.
At the threshold, learned counsel for the appellant does not
challenge the finding of conviction but it is submitted that since
the occurrence relates back to year 2006 and the appellant has so
far suffered a sentence of three years, six months & twenty four
days, out of total sentence of four years, therefore, it is prayed
that the substantive sentence awarded to the appellant for the
aforesaid offence may be reduced to the period already undergone
by him. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the
appellant relied upon judgment of this Court in the case of
Mohammad Ali v. State of Rajasthan reported in 2013(4) CJ(Cri.)
[2023:RJ-JD:43040] (3 of 4) [CRLA-506/2013]
(Raj.) 1914, Niyamat Ali Nemu v. State of Rajasthan reported in
2013(4) CJ(Cri.) (Raj.) 1915, Sher Singh vs. State of Rajasthan
reported in 2016(1) WLN 156 (Raj.)
On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed
the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant.
The learned PP submitted that there is neither any occasion to
interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused appellant nor
any compassion or sympathy is called for in the said case.
I have perused the evidence of the prosecution as well as
defence and the judgment passed by the trial court regarding
conviction of the accused-appellant.
Undisputedly, the incident relates back to the year 2006 and
the appellant has so far undergone a period of three years, six
months & twenty four days' incarceration out of the total sentence
of four years' R.I. so also suffered the mental agony and trauma
of protracted trial. Thus, looking to the over-all circumstances and
the fact that the appellant has remained behind the bars for
considerable time, it will be just and proper if the sentence
awarded by the trial court for offence under Section 8/21(B) NDPS
Act is reduced to the period already undergone by him while
maintaining the fine amount as imposed by the trial court.
Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining
the appellant's conviction and sentence for offence under Section
8/21(B) NDPS Act, the sentence awarded to him is reduced to the
period already undergone, however the amount of fine is hereby
maintained. Three months' time is granted to deposit the fine
amount before the trial court. In default of payment of fine, the
[2023:RJ-JD:43040] (4 of 4) [CRLA-506/2013]
appellant shall undergo three months' RI. The appellant is on bail.
He need not surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged.
The record of the trial court be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
229-MS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
