Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bhairaram vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:11417) on 27 February, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:11417]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 395/2025
Bhairaram S/o Shri Madruparam, Aged About 43 Years, R/o
Chuli, Police Station Sadar Barmer, Dist. Barmer, Rajasthan. (At
Present Lodged In Central Jail, Udaipur)
----Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. M.K. Dudy
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, GA-cum-AAG
Mr. K.S. Kumpawat, AAAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
27/02/2025
Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant under
Section 415 of B.N.S.S. (old Section 374(2) Cr.P.C.) against the
judgment dated 15.02.2025 passed by learned Special Judge,
NDPS Cases No.2, Chittorgarh in Session Case No.244/2014
(05/2006) by which the learned Judge convicted and sentenced the
petitioner as under:-
Offence Sentence Fine Sentence in
default of fine
Section 279 IPC 6 months' S.I. ---- ----
Section 336 IPC 3 months' S.I. ---- ----
Section 8/15 NDPS 2 years and six Rs.30,000/- 03 months' R.I.
months' R.I.
Brief facts of the case are that on 15.07.2005, Bhairu Singh,
SHO, Police Station Bhadsouda along with his team stopped a Tata
[2025:RJ-JD:11417] (2 of 4) [CRLAS-395/2025]
Sumo bearing registration No.GJ-12-P-5124 coming from
Nimbahera. Police tried to stop the vehicle at Mangalwad toll tax
post, but it did not stop and fled from there. Police chased the
vehicle and searched it. Upon searching the vehicle, 07 quintals 28
Kgs of opium powder was recovered in 18 sacks from the
appellant without any valid licence and permit. It was also alleged
that the accused-appellant was carrying an illegal fire arm.
The police registered the FIR and started investigation. After
investigation, the police filed challan against the present appellant
for offence under Section 8/15 of NDPS Act and under Section
3/25 of Arms Act and Section 279, 336, 420, 467, 468, 471 &
120-B of IPC. Thereafter, the charge for offence under Section
8/15 of NDPS Act, Section 3/25 Arms Act and Section 336, 279,
471, 467, 420 & 120B of IPC was framed by the trial court against
the appellant, who denied the charges and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined twenty
one witnesses and various documents were also exhibited.
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 15.02.2025 convicted and sentenced
the appellant for offence under Section 8/15 of NDPS Act and
Sections 279 & 336 of IPC as mentioned earlier. It is also
mentioned by the trial Court in his order that the recovered
contraband is below commercial quantity.
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
[2025:RJ-JD:11417] (3 of 4) [CRLAS-395/2025]
far suffered a sentence of one year & four months, out of total
sentence of two years and six months' RI, therefore, it is prayed
that the substantive sentence awarded to the appellant for the
aforesaid offences 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.)
(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 Additional Advocate General
opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
appellant. The learned AAG 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 about one year and
four months incarceration, out of the total sentence of two years
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 and Sections 279 & 336 of IPC is reduced to the period
[2025:RJ-JD:11417] (4 of 4) [CRLAS-395/2025]
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 for offence under Section 8/15 NDPS Act
and Sections 279 & 336 of IPC, the sentence awarded to him is
reduced to the period already undergone. The fine amount, as
imposed by the learned trial court is hereby maintained. If the
appellant deposit the fine amount then he may be released
forthwith, if not required in any other case and if he fails to
deposit the fine amount then he shall further undergo two month's
SI.
Application for suspension of sentence is also decided
accordingly.
The record of the trial court, if received, be sent back
forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
220-GKaviya/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
