Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRA/7853/2019 of PANKAJ 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. 7853 of 2019
BETWEEN:-
PANKAJ S/O BHUPENDRA SHASTRI, AGED ABOUT 40YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR 12, PATIL JI KA MAKANINDIRA NAGAR UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
(SHRI ANURAG VYAS- ADVOCATE THROUGH LEGAL AID)
.....APPELLANT
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSEOFFICER THR.PS. KOTWALI (MADHYA PRADESH)
(SHRI KAPIL MAHANT-PANEL LAWYER)
.....RESPONDENT
This appeal coming on for hearing this day, th e 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.
JUDGMENT
This appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C has been preferredchallenging the order dated 30.08.2019 passed by Special Judge, NDPS, Ujjainin Special Case No.03/2016 whereby the appellant has been convicted underSection 08/20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, 1985 and sentenced to undergo 01year R.I and fine of Rs.10,000/- with ususal default stipulations.
2. The facts in brief are that appellant/accused has been found inpossession of 1kg 300gms of Ganja at Manas Bhawan, Kshirsagar, Ujjain.Thereafter, a case was registered against the appellant/accused as CrimeNo.40/16 at Police Station Kotwali, Ujjain. After completion of investigation chargesheet has been filed before the Special Judge, NDPS Act, 1985, Ujjain.
3. The appellant/accused abjured the guilt. Prosecution has examined Police Constable Dinesh Chouhan PW-1, Police Constable Yogesh SharmaPW-2, Assistant Sub-Inspector Bhagwan Singh Sengar PW-3, Nilesh GularPW-4, Anil Bairagi PW-5, Retired Head Constable Dinesh Saxena PW-6,Police Constable Rupendra Yadav PW-7, Police Inspector Vivek Kannodiya,Sub-Inspector O.P Joshi PW-09 and after appreciating the evidence convictedappellant/accused under Section 08/20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, 1985 andsentenced him as mentioned in para 01 of the judgment.
4. Challenging the conviction and sentence this appeal has been preferredon the ground that independent witness Nilesh Gular PW-4 and Anil BairagiPW-5 have not supported the prosecution case. Also, provisions under Section42, 55, 57 and 52(A) of NDPS Act have not been complied with.
5. Heard with the aid of amicus curiae Shri Anurag Vyas, learnedcounsel on behalf of appellant.
6. Learned Govt. Advocate has opposed the prayer and prayed for itsrejection.
7. Perused the testimony of prosecution witnesses. Trial Court hasdiscussed meticulously every issue raised on behalf of appellant/accused andrecorded the findings regarding compliance of Section 50, 55, 45 and 47 ofNDPS Act, 1985 in para 25, 29 and 30 of the judgment.
8. On re-appreciation of evidence of prosecution witnesses, the findings of trial Court regarding conviction of sentence of appellant/accused does notcall for interference. Hence, conviction of appellant/accused under Section 08read with 20 (b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, 1985 is hereby affirmed.Appellant/accused has already undergone the sentence from 11.02.2016 to 30.05.2016 and 30.08.2019 to 24.10.19.
9. Looking to the period of custody and the quantity of contrabandseized from the appellant/accused the ends of justice would be served if theperiod of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone and theamount of fine is enhanced.
10. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed and the sentence awardedto the appellant/accused is hereby reduced to the sentence of period alreadyundergone which is 05 months 14 days b y increasing the fine amount fromRs.10,000/- to Rs.30,000/- to be paid by appellant/accused within 90 days fromtoday.
11. It is made clear that if the appellant/accused fails to deposit theremaining fine amount before the trial Court, he would suffer additional jailsentence for six months & fifteen days of rigorous imprisonment in default ofpayment of fine amount.
12. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court fornecessary compliance.
Certified copy as per rules.
akanksha
(GAJENDRA SINGH)V. JUDGE