Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Rattan Lal vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:13074) on 7 March, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:13074]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 6/2025
Rattan Lal S/o Laxman, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Sarola Teh.
Ghatia, Ps Bharugarh Dist. Ujjain (M.P.) (Lodged In Central Jail
Jodhpur)
----Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pawan Kumar Bhati, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
07/03/2025
Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant under
Section 374 Cr.P.C. (corresponding new Section 415 B.N.S.S.)
against the judgment dated 05.09.2024 passed by learned Special
Judge, NDPS Cases, (Additional District & Sessions Judge No.1)
Barmer in Criminal Case No.108/2016 by which the learned Judge
convicted the appellant for offence under Section 8/25 of NDPS
Act and sentenced him to undergo ten years & six months R.I.
alongwith a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default of payment of
fine, to undergo two years’ R.I.
Brief facts of the case are that on 31.07.2013, at about 4 PM
Devaram Choudhary, SHO received an information that an
overturned truck was lying at National Highway No.15. Upon
conducting a search of the vehicle, authorities discovered 218
sacks containing a total weight of 4251 kgs. of poppy husk, which
(Downloaded on 11/03/2025 at 09:33:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:13074] (2 of 4) [CRLAS-6/2025]
were found to be in the absence of any valid licence or permit.
Consequently, the police registered the FIR and started
investigation.
After investigation, the police filed challan against the
present appellant for offence under Section 8/15 & 25 of NDPS
Act. Thereafter, the charge for offence under Section 8/15 read
with 25 of NDPS Act was framed by the trial court against the
appellant, who denied the charges and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined 18
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 05.09.2024 convicted and sentenced
the appellant for offence under Section 8/25 of NDPS Act as
mentioned earlier.
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 2013 and the appellant has so
far suffered a sentence of ten years & six months, out of total
sentence of ten years & six months RI, therefore, it is prayed that
the substantive sentence awarded to the appellant for the
aforesaid offence may be reduced to the period already undergone
by him. It is further submitted that a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- has
been imposed on the appellant, with a default provision stipulating
two years of rigorous imprisonment in the event of non-payment
which is very onerous looking to the financial condition of the
accused. Though the same may be reduced appropriately. In
support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant relied
(Downloaded on 11/03/2025 at 09:33:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:13074] (3 of 4) [CRLAS-6/2025]
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 Public Prosecutor opposed
the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant.
The learned Public Prosecutor 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 2013 and
the appellant has so far undergone a period of ten years & six
months incarceration and now he is suffering the default sentence
of two years.
As far as the question of fine amount and default sentence
for non-payment of fine are concerned, it is seen that the Trial
Court is right in imposing Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only)
as the same is minimum fine amount prescribed by the law.
However, when accused pleads inability to pay the fine and the
default sentence alone is appropriately reduced by this Court by
taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case.
Taking into consideration the facts that the accused is an
indigent person this Court is inclined to modify the default
(Downloaded on 11/03/2025 at 09:33:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:13074] (4 of 4) [CRLAS-6/2025]
sentence in respect of fine. In this case, this Court view that the
default sentence shall be reduced from two years to two months.
Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The appellant’s
conviction and the fine amount for offence under Section 8/25
NDPS Act is hereby maintained. The petitioner has already served
the total sentence of ten years and six months RI. So far as
default sentence is concerned, the same is reduced from two
years RI to two months RI. If the appellant deposits the fine
amount then he shall be released forthwith, if not wanted in any
other case. If the appellant fails to deposit the fine amount then in
default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo two
months’ RI.
The record of the trial court be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
C-1-Rashi/-
(Downloaded on 11/03/2025 at 09:33:38 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)