Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State vs Virendra Singh (2025:Rj-Jd:13359) on 10 March, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:13359]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 595/2015
State of Rajasthan, through PP
----Appellant
Versus
Virendra Singh S/o Gurdeo Singh, By Caste Jat Sikh, Resident of
Sikaidi, P.S. Rama, District Bhatinda (Punjab)
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Lalit Kishore Sen, PP
For Respondent(s) : Mr. B.S. Sandhu
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
10/03/2025
Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant-State
under Section 377 Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 27.05.2015
passed by learned Special Judge, NDPS Act, Hanumangarh, in
Sessions Case No.22/2012, whereby the learned court convicted
the accused-respondent for offence under Section 8/15 (b) of
NDPS Act, but awarded inadequate/lesser sentence of One
Month's RI along with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of
payment of fine, to further undergo ten (10) days' RI.
Brief facts of the case are that on 26.06.2012 at about 04:15
PM, during patrolling, Shri Narain Singh, SHO, PS Hanumangarh
Junction apprehended a person carrying a maroon suitcase. On
inquiry, the said person disclosed his name as Virendra Singh
(present accused-respondent). Upon search, 3.400kg poppy husk
was recovered from the accused-respondent without any valid
licence and permit. After following due process of law, the Police
[2025:RJ-JD:13359] (2 of 4) [CRLA-595/2015]
arrested the accused-respondent and registered a case against
him under NDPS Act and started investigation.
On completion of investigation, the police filed challan
against the accused-respondent. Thereafter, the charge for offence
under Section 8/15 (b) of NDPS Act was framed by the trial court
against the accused-respondent, who denied the charge and
claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many
as four witnesses and got exhibited certain documents. Thereafter,
statement of accused-respondent under section 313 Cr.P.C was
recorded.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 27.05.2015 convicted the accused-
respondent for offence under Section 8/15 (b) of NDPS Act but
awarded inadequate/lesser sentence, as mentioned above.
Hence, this criminal appeal against the award of
lesser/inadequate sentence to the accused-respondent.
Learned counsel for the appellant-State submits that the
learned trial court has committed grave error in awarding
lesser/inadequate sentence to the accused-respondent for offence
under Section 8/15 (b) of NDPS Act. It is submitted that the
prosecution has proved its case by placing cogent evidence on
record, for which the accused-respondent ought to have been
awarded adequate sentence, but the learned trial court merely on
the basis of surmises and conjectures, has awarded
lesser/inadequate sentence to the accused-respondent, which has
resulted into total failure of justice. Thus, sentence awarded to the
[2025:RJ-JD:13359] (3 of 4) [CRLA-595/2015]
accused-respondent by the trial court vide impugned judgment
deserves to be enhanced.
Counsel for the accused-respondent submits that the
sentence awarded by the learned trial court to the accused-
respondent for offence under Section 8/15 (b) of NDPS is just and
proper as the contraband recovered is below commercial quantity.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
evidence of the prosecution as well as defence and the judgment
passed by the learned trial court.
Based on the evidence on record and the findings of the
courts, it is evident that the accused-respondent was convicted for
offence under Section 8/15 (b) of NDPS Act based on the
witnesses' statements and other documents. The trial court
carefully evaluated the evidence and concluded that the
prosecution has successfully proven the charges against the
accused-respondent beyond any reasonable doubt. However,
considering that the accused-respondent had no prior criminal
antecedents and he is an ailing person of old age, the trial court
had awarded a sentence of only one month's RI along with fine of
Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo
ten (10) days' RI.
Considering the facts that the incident is related to the year
2012 and the accused-appellant is not a habitual offender and he
had no prior criminal antecedents, this Court is of the opinion that
the sentence as awarded by the trial court seems to be just and
proper, which does not call for any interference by this Court.
[2025:RJ-JD:13359] (4 of 4) [CRLA-595/2015]
Hence, the criminal appeal being without substance is hereby
dismissed.
Record of the courts below be sent back.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
137-GKaviya/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
