Rajasthan High Court
Raheesh S/O Rabbu Khan vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jp:6102) on 2 February, 2024
Author: Praveer Bhatnagar
Bench: Praveer Bhatnagar
[2024:RJ-JP:6102]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 341/2021
Raheesh S/o Rabbu Khan, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Kaagji
Mohalla Alanpur, District Sawai Madhopur (Raj)
(At Present Accused Confined In District Jail Sawai Madhopur)
----Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Prakash Shrivastav with
Mr. Ajay Yogi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Chandragupt Chopra - PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR
Judgment
02/02/2024
1. This instant criminal appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. has
been preferred on behalf of accused Raheesh against the
judgment dated 22.01.2021 passed by learned Sessions Judge,
Sawai Madhopur (Raj.) in Session Case No.12/20198, whereby,
the learned Judge convicted the appellant for the offence under
Section 8/21 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as
the 'NDPS Act') and sentenced to suffer six months rigorous
imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of
payment of fine, he was further ordered to undergo fifteen days
simple imprisonment.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 22.05.2018 complainant
Nemichand, SHO Police Station Kotwali gave a report (parcha) to
the effect that on 22.05.2018 at around 04:23 PM when he
alongwith his team went for patrolling, they caught the appellant
(2 of 4) [CRLAS-341/2021]
and upon search it was found that appellant was carrying
contraband smack, weighing 5.6 grm, without any licence.
3. On the basis of this report (parcha) an FIR No.265/2018 was
registered at P.S. Kotwali, Sawai Madhopur for the offence under
Section 8/21 of the NDPS Act and after thorough investigation
charge-sheet under Section 8/21 of the NDPS Act was filed against
the present accused-appellant before the learned trial court.
4. The learned trial court framed charges against the appellant
for the above offence and upon denial of guilt by him, commenced
the trial. During the course of trial, the prosecution in order to
prove the offence, examined as many as 11 witnesses and
exhibited 18 documents. The accused-appellant, upon being
confronted with the prosecution allegation, in his statement under
Section 313 Cr.P.C., denied the allegation and claimed to be
innocent. Then, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and
upon meticulous appreciation of the evidence, learned trial court
convicted the accused for the offence under Section 8/21 of the
NDPS Act vide judgment dated 22.01.2021. Hence, this criminal
appeal is filed before this court.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the first bail
application for suspension of sentence filed by the appellant was
allowed vide order dated 18.03.2021 but the appellant could not
mark his presence before this Court on 19.04.2021. However, vide
order dated 22.08.2023 arrest warrant was issued against the
appellant and he was taken to the custody and sent to serve the
sentence. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, makes a
limited submission that the maximum sentence awarded by the
trial court is six months rigorous imprisonment and the appellant
(3 of 4) [CRLAS-341/2021]
has already remained in custody for a period of 3 months & 12
days, therefore, without making any interference on
merits/conviction, the sentence awarded to the present appellant
may be substituted with the period of sentence already undergone
by him.
6. Learned Public Prosecutor supports the judgment passed by
learned trial court and opposes the criminal appeal.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
impugned judgment.
8. This Court is conscious of the judgments rendered in Alister
Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra : (2012) 2 SCC 648 and
Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B. : (1998) 9 SCC 678, wherein, the
Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:-
Alister Anthony Pareira (Supra)
"There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an accused
on proof of crime. The courts have evolved certain
principles: twin objective of the sentencing policy is
deterrence and correction. What sentence would meet the
ends of justice depends on the facts and circumstances of
each case and the court must keep in mind the gravity of
the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and
all other attendant circumstances."
Haripada Das (Supra)
"...considering the fact that the respondent had already
undergone detention for some period and the case is
pending for a pretty long time for which he had suffered
both financial hardship and mental agony and also
considering the fact that he had been released on bail as
far back as on 17-1-1986, we feel that the ends of justice
will be met in the facts of the case if the sentence is
reduced to the period already undergone..."
9. In light of the limited prayer made on behalf of the petitioner
and keeping in mind the aforementioned precedent laws, the
present criminal appeal is allowed. However, the conviction of the
petitioner for the offence under Sections 8/12 of the NDPS Act is
(4 of 4) [CRLAS-341/2021]
maintained and the sentences awarded to him are reduced to the
period already undergone by him and imposition of fine by the
trial court is maintained. The Jail Authorities, District Jail, Sawai
Madhopur are directed to release the appellant forthwith from the
custody, if he is not required in any other criminal case. His bail
bonds stand discharged accordingly.
10. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the
learned court below be sent back forthwith.
(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J
75-ASHWINI KUMAR CHOUHAN /680
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
