Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Amardeep Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:15652) on 25 March, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:15652]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 570/2025
Amardeep Singh S/o Shri Harmendra Singh, Aged About 40
Years, R/o Chak Maharajka, Teshil -Sadul Shahar ,district -
Sriganganagar Rajasthan (Presently Lodged At Central Jail
Sriganganagar)
----Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Saurabh Soni
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Singh Kumpawat, Asst. to
Mr. Deepak Choudhary, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
25/03/2025
Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant under
Section 415 of BNSS against the judgment dated 29.11.2024
passed by learned Sessions Judge, Srigangangar, in Sessions Case
No.01/2018 (CIS No.01/2018) by which the learned Judge
convicted and sentenced the appellant as under:-
Offence Fine & default sentence
Section 28 of Drugs & Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment
Cosmetics Act of fine, 2 months' S.I.
Section 22(3) of Drugs & Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment
Cosmetics Act of fine, 2 months' S.I.
Brief facts of the case are that on 07.04.2017 complainant
submitted a complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate
(Drug Control Officer), Sriganganagar to the effect that on
19.10.2014 Amardeep Singh was caught with Rexcof cough syrup
and spasmoproxyvon plus capsules in large quantity without
having any license or permit. Offence was proved by the
[2025:RJ-JD:15652] (2 of 3) [CRLAS-570/2025]
Investigating Authority and thereafter the cognizance was taken
by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sriganganagar, and after
that the matter was committed to the learned Sessions Judge,
Sriganganagar. Thereafter, the charges of the case were framed
against the appellant. He denied the charges and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined 6
witnesses, 33 documents and 4 articles 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 29.11.2024 convicted and sentenced
the appellant for offence under Sections 28 & 22(3) of Drugs &
Cosmetics Act.
At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits that
accused appellant is not challenging the finding of conviction but it
is submitted that the occurrence relates back to the year 2014
and the appellant has already served the default sentence of two
months and seventeen days, out of total four months of default
sentence. Therefore, it is prayed that the default sentence
awarded to the appellant for the aforesaid offences may be
reduced to the period already undergone by him.
On the other hand, the learned Asst. to Addl. Advocate
General 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.
[2025:RJ-JD:15652] (3 of 3) [CRLAS-570/2025]
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. Learned Asst. to Addl.
Advocate General has submitted the custody certificate of the
appellant according to which the appellant has so far undergone a
period of two months and seventeen days. Thus, undisputedly, the
appellant has so far undergone a period of more than two months
of default sentence out of the total four months simple
imprisonment so also suffered the 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 default sentence awarded by the
trial court for offence under Sections 28 and 22(3) of Drugs &
Cosmetics Act is reduced to the period already undergone by him.
Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining
the appellant's conviction for offence under Sections 28 and 22(3)
of Drugs & Cosmetics Act, the default sentence awarded to him is
reduced to the period already undergone by him.
Application for suspension of sentence is hereby disposed of.
The appellant is in custody, he may be released forthwith, if
not required in any other case.
The record of the trial court, if any, be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
180-Ishan/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
