Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sukhdev Singh vs State (2024:Rj-Jd:10294) on 28 February, 2024
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2024:RJ-JD:10294]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 879/2008
Sukhdev Singh S/o Tahal Singh, B/c Jatsikh, R/o Kakhanwali,
P.S. Lambi, District Mukatsar (Punjab)
----Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. R.S. Gill
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Anita Gehlot, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
28/02/2024
Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant under
Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 28.11.2008
passed by learned Special Judge NDPS Cases, Hanumangarh in
Sessions Case No.48/2005 by which the learned Judge convicted
the appellant for offence under Section 8/15(b) of NDPS Act and
sentenced him to undergo one year and six months' R.I. alongwith
a fine of Rs.15,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo
four months' S.I.
Brief facts of the case are that on 15.09.2005 at about 7.30
P.M. Shri Prithvi Singh, Station House Officer of Police Station
Sangaria, received a secret information about contraband being
carried by the accused appellant. Upon this information, he
alongwith other Police Officials reached at Haripura Village, where
eight persons were intervened, out of them the accused petitioner
viz. Sukhdev Singh was found with a bag on his shoulder who was
[2024:RJ-JD:10294] (2 of 4) [CRLA-879/2008]
apprehended and then a search was made, the Police recovered
total 5 Kg. Poppy husk in a plastic bag and two samples of 500
Grams each were taken and rest of poppy was sealed in a bag and
accused petitioner was arrested.
The police registered the FIR for offence under Section 8/15
NDPS Act and started investigation. After investigation, the police
filed challan against the present appellant. Thereafter, the charge
for offence under Section 8/15 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 eight
witnesses and also exhibited some documents. Thereafter,
statement of appellant under section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 28.11.2008 convicted and sentenced
the appellant for offence under Section 8/15 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 2005 and the appellant has so
far suffered a sentence of about fifteen days, out of total sentence
of one year and six months' R.I., 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.
[2024:RJ-JD:10294] (3 of 4) [CRLA-879/2008]
State of Rajasthan reported in 2013(4) CJ(Cri.) (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 2005 and
the appellant has so far undergone a period of fifteen days
incarceration, out of the total sentence of one year and six
months' 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 8/15 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
8/15 NDPS Act, the sentence awarded to him is reduced to the
period already undergone, however the amount of fine is hereby
[2024:RJ-JD:10294] (4 of 4) [CRLA-879/2008]
maintained. Four months' time is granted to deposit the fine
amount before the trial court. In default of payment of fine, the
appellant shall undergo one months' SI. 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
231-Ishan/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
