Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shankar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 December, 2024
Author: Prem Narayan Singh
Bench: Prem Narayan Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:36916
1 CRA-11191-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH
ON THE 23rd OF DECEMBER, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 11191 of 2024
SHANKAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Ashish Gupta - advocate for the appellant.
Shri Surendra Gupta appearing on behalf of Advocate General.
Judgement
With consent of the parties, heard finally.
1. I.A. No.16366/2024, an application for condonation of delay of 21
days is allowed and disposed of by condoning the delay in filing the appeal.
2. At the outset, counsel for the appellant prays for withdrawal of I.A.
No.16367/2024, an application for suspension of jail sentence and prays for
final disposal of the appeal at motion stage.
3. Prayer is allowed and application is dismissed as withdrawn and the
appeal is heard finally at motion stage.
4. This criminal appeal is preferred under section 374 of Cr.P.C. by the
appellant being disgruntled by the judgment dated 04.07.2024, passed by
learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), District Barwani (M.P.) in S.T,
No.08/2022, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 8(c)/20(b)(ii)(b) of NDPS Act and sentenced to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 12/23/2024
4:57:21 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:36916
2 CRA-11191-2024
undergo 04 years R.I. with fine of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation.
5. As per the prosecution story. on 21.08.2022, the police has received
a discreet information that one person is transporting some contraband on
motorcycle. Based on the said information, the police has intercepted a
vehicle CD Delux MP.-46-MD-1009 at in front of Mid-Way Hotel at AB
Road. After seeing the police, the accused tried to fled away from the spot.
The police caught the accused and on being searched, 05KG of ganja was
recovered from his possession. Thereafter, the police registered the FIR
against the appellant.
6. The learned trial Court, after considering the evidence and material
available on record has convicted the appellant, as stated above in para No.1.
7. The appellant has preferred this criminal appeal on several grounds
but during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant did not
press this appeal on merits and did not assail the findings of conviction part
of the judgment. He confines his arguments on the point of sentence.
Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has suffered
approximately 09 months of his incarceration out of the sentence so awarded
by learned trial Court. The appellant is having regard to all circumstances
which resulted in appellant's conviction and further keeping in view the fact
that the appellant was facing the trial before the concerned Court for more
than 03 years, therefore, he prayed that the appeal be partly allowed and the
sentence awarded to the appellant be reduced to the period already
undergone by enhancing the fine amount or as the Court may deems fit in the
interest of justice.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 12/23/2024
4:57:21 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:36916
3 CRA-11191-2024
8. Learned counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the prayer. He
supported the judgment and order by submitting that there is clear evidence
against the appellant, therefore, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.
9. I have considered rival contentions of the parties and perused the
record.
10. So for as the contentions on merits of the case raised in appeal
memo by learned counsel for the appellant is concerned, the learned trial
Court has not committed any error in appreciation of evidence available on
record. Further, it is found that the Court below considered the evidence
available on record and correctly found that the case of the prosecution is
well supported by the witnesses and documentary testimony. The procedure
was well followed by the prosecution and the witnesses of prosecution have
profoundly supported the prosecution case. The trial Court has well
considered the material available on record, hence, no infirmity is found in
the impugned order of conviction passed by the trial Court, accordingly, the
same is upheld.
11. In so far as the sentence is concerned, learned counsel for the
appellant has alternatively prayed only on the part of sentence and submitted
that since the appellant has already suffered approximately 09 months of his
incarceration and since, there is no minimum sentence prescribed, he may be
released only with the undergone sentence or may reduce his sentence to the
minimum extent by enhancing the fine amount.
12. In this regard, earlier also the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this
Court has also considered the prayer and reduced the incarceration period of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 12/23/2024
4:57:21 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:36916
4 CRA-11191-2024
the accused persons to the period already undergone in the cases where the
quantity of the contraband is found to be of non-commercial or less than the
commercial quantity.
13. On this aspect, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of R.
Kumaravel vs. Inspector of Police NIB CID (CRA No.1056/2019) decided
on 15.07.2019 has observed as under:-
“As per Section 20(b)(ii) (b) of minimum
punishment is prescribed for involvement of the
quantity lesser than commercial quantity, by greater
than the small quantity.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant has submitted that the appellant has no
criminal antecedents. The appellant has already
undergone imprisonment for about 206 days.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the
sentence of imprisonment of two years imposed upon
the appellant is reduced to one year.”
14. Further, on this aspect, the case of Mangilal Vs. Central Narcotics
Bureau [2006 Law Suit (MP) 111] is worth referring here wherein the Court
has partly allowed the appeal and as the case was related to 2 kg opium i.e.
non-commercial quantity, passed a conviction for 3 years RI with fine of Rs.
1000/- instead of 5 years. Similarly, in the case of Kamal Vs. State of M.P.
2012 Law Suit (M.P.) 2298 (CRA No.10/2011) , Baba @ Akash Sonkar vs.
State of M.P., 2020 Law Suit (M.P.) 1645 (CRA No.426/2000) , Bhagwat
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 12/23/2024
4:57:21 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:36916
5 CRA-11191-2024
Patel Vs. State of M.P., 2022 LawSuit 789 (CRA No.674/2022) , Munna @
Munnu Pandit Vs. State of M.P., 2022 Law Suit 789 (CRA No.2494/2022)
the co-ordinate Bench have reduced the sentences of the accused persons
respectively in non-commercial quantities. In the case of Kamal (supra) , the
co-ordinate Bench has reduced the punishment to undergone for
approximately two years out of five years for a non-commercial quantity, in
the case of Baba @ Akash Sonkar (supra), reduced the sentence to one year
out of seven years imprisonment, in Bhagwat Patel (supra) the Bench has
reduced the sentence to the period already undergone in 8 months and
similarly in the case of Munna (supra) in seven months.
15. In view of the aforesaid, so far as the sentence is considered, it
seems that the appellant has suffered custody of approximately 11 months.
That apart, the appellant has suffered the ordeal of criminal case since 2019.
There is no minimum sentence prescribed in this regard. On this aspect, the
law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of R. Kumarawal
(supra) as well as the settled propositions of law endorsed by coordinate
bench of this court, has been considered.
16. In view of the aforesaid legal proposition regarding non-
commercial quantity or the punishment on higher side, this Court finds it
expedient to partly allow this appeal. However, looking to the facts and
circumstances of the case, no other criminal antecedents registered against
him as well as the appellant has already undergone 09 months of his custody,
this Court finds it expedite to reduce the sentence of the appellant to the
period already undergone by enchanting the fine amount from Rs.10000/- to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 12/23/2024
4:57:21 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:36916
6 CRA-11191-2024
Rs.1,00,000/- to meet the ends of justice.
17. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is partly allowed and the
sentence under Sections 8(c)/20(b)(ii)(b) of NDPS Act awarded to the
appellant is hereby reduced to the period already undergone by enhancing
the fine amount from Rs.10000/- to Rs.1,00,000/-. In case of failure to
deposit the fine amount, the appellant shall further undergo for two months
simple imprisonment.
18. The appellant is in jail, he be set at liberty forthwith immediately
subject to deposit the fine amount.
19. The bail bond (if any) of the appellant shall be discharged after
depositing of the fine amount. Fine amount, if already deposited, shall be
adjusted.
20. The judgment of learned trial Court regarding disposal of the
seized property stands affirmed.
21. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for
necessary compliance.
22. Pending I.As. if any, stands closed.
23. With the aforesaid, the present appeal stands disposed off.
Certified copy, as per rules.
amit
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 12/23/2024
4:57:21 PM