Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRA/1337/2010 of DURGA AND ANR. Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 29 December 2023
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT INDOREBEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGHON THE 29[th] OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1337 of 2010
BETWEEN:-
1.DURGA AND ANR. S/O MEGHA BANJARA, AGED62 YEARS, R/O RAYSINGHPURA P.S. NEEMUCHDISTT. NEEMUCH (MADHYA PRADESH)
2.GANGARAM S/O MEGHA BANJARA, AGED 42YEARS, R/O VILL. RAYSINGHPURA, P.S. NEEMUCH(MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI RAJESH YADAV - ADVOCATE)
.....APPELLANTS
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH GOVT. THRU. P.S.SINGOLI DISTT. NEEMUCH (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT/STATE
(BY SHRI ANENDRA SINGH PARIHAR - PANEL LAWYER)
This appeal coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. has been filedfeeling aggrieved by the judgment of Special Judge (NDPS Act), Neemuch inSpecial Case No.27/2007, whereby the appellants have been convicted underSections 8 read with 21(a) and 8 read with 29/21(a) of NDPS Act, 1985 andsentenced to undergo R.I. for 04 months respectively, for possessing smallquantity of contraband and sentence has been ordered to be served concurrent.
2) Brief facts of the case are that the appellants/accused persons were prosecuted alongwith one Vinod under Section 8 read with Section 21 of NDPSAct, 1985 and Section 8 read with 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 for conspiracyand possession of smack contraband on 16.04.2007 at around 05:35 PM,village Jhantala Chauraha, Police Station Singoli, District Neemuch inconnection with Crime No.36/2007 registered in Police Station Singoli, DistrictNeemuch. After recording the evidence of prosecution witnesses constableJayanti Lal (PW-1), Assistant Sub- Inspector Khalil Khan (PW-2), HeadConstable Todarmal Sankla (PW-3), Police Constable Raghunath Singh (PW-4), Dilip Sharma (PW-5), Akbar (PW-6), Nanuram Joshi (PW-7), Ram PratapMishra (PW-8), Himmatpuri (PW-9), Toofan Singh (PW-10), AvnishShrivastava (PW-11), Head Constable Kushal Singh (PW-12) trial Courtconvicted the appellants/accused persons under Sections 8 read with 21(a) and8 read with 29/21(a) of NDPS Act.
3) Limited prayer on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellants/accused persons is regarding sentence only.
4) Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.
5) On re-appreciation of prosecution witnesses, the findings of the trial Court regarding conviction of appellants/accused under Sections 8 read with21(a) and 8 read with 29/21(a) of NDPS Act do not call for interference. Hence,the conviction of the appellants/accused persons under Sections 8 read with21(a) and 8 read with 29/21(a) of NDPS Act is affirmed.
6) The appellants/accused persons have been convicted for smallquantity. In this matter, appellants/accused persons have undergone the totalperiod of custody from 18.04.2007 to 26.05.2008 and from 21.10.2010 to 19.11.2010. Thus, both the accused persons have undergone the sentence of 02months and 07 days.
7) In this case, there is no criminal antecedent of the appellants/accused.They are facing the trial from 2007. The ends of justice will be served if thesentence of imprisonment is reduced and amount of fine is imposed.
8) The appeal is partly allowed and the sentence of imprisonment onappellants/accused is reduced to the period already undergone i.e. 2 monthsand 7 days and the fine of Rs.3000/- is imposed on each appellants/accused.
9) The amount of fine shall be deposited by the appellants/accusedwithin a period of 90 days, failing which, the appellants shall undergo a sentenceof one month rigorous imprisonment.
10) With the aforesaid, the criminal appeal is partly allowed and disposed off.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)JUDGEShruti