IMPORTANT POINT
The appellate court upheld the trial court's sentence as just and proper, considering the accused's age and health despite the conviction for drug possession.

JUDGMENT :

Manoj Kumar Garg, J.

1. Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant-State under Section 377 Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 25.03.2015 passed by learned Special Judge, NDPS Act, Hanumangarh, in Sessions Case No. 03/2011, whereby the learned court convicted the accused-respondent for offence under Section 8/20 of NDPS Act, but awarded inadequate/lesser sentence of 45 days RI along with fine of Rs. 8,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month RI.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 02.12.2010 at about 1:30 PM, during patrolling, Shri. Sanjay Bothra, SHO, PS Hanumangarh Junction apprehended a person carrying a white gunny bag. On inquiry, the said person disclosed his name as Ramgopal (present accused-respondent). Upon search, 8 kg. 300 grms marijuana was recovered from the accused-respondent without any valid licence and permit. After following due process of law, the Police arrested the accused-respondent and registered a case against him under NDPS Act and started investigation.

3. On completion of investigation, the police filed challan against the accused-respondent. Thereafter, the charge for offence under Section 8/18 of NDPS Act was framed by the trial court against the accused-respondent, who denied the charge and claimed trial.

4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses and got exhibited certain documents. Thereafter, statement of accused-respondent under section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded.

5. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 25.03.2015 convicted the accused-respondent for offence under Section 8/20 of NDPS Act but awarded inadequate/lesser sentence, as mentioned above.

6. Hence, this criminal appeal against the award of lesser/inadequate sentence to the accused-respondent.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant-State submits that the learned trial court has committed grave error in awarding lesser/inadequate sentence to the accused-respondent for offence under Section 8/20 of NDPS Act. It is submitted that the prosecution has proved its case by placing cogent evidence on record, for which the accused-respondent ought to have been awarded adequate sentence, but the learned trial court merely on the basis of surmises and conjectures, has awarded lesser/inadequate sentence to the accused-respondent, which has resulted into total failure of justice. Thus, sentence awarded to the accused-respondent by the trial court vide impugned judgment deserves to be enhanced.

8. Counsel for the accused-respondent submits that the sentence awarded by the learned trial court to the accused-respondent for offence under Section 8/20 of NDPS is just and proper as the accused-respondent is an old aged person suffering from various diseases.

9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence of the prosecution as well as defence and the judgment passed by the learned trial court.

10. Based on the evidence on record and the findings of the courts, it is evident that the accused-respondent was convicted for offence under Section 8/20 of NDPS Act based on the witnesses' statements and other documents. The trial court carefully evaluated the evidence and concluded that the prosecution has successfully proven the charges against the accused-respondent beyond any reasonable doubt. However, considering that the accused-respondent had no prior criminal antecedents and he is an ailing person of old age, the trial court had awarded a sentence of only 45 days RI along with fine of Rs. 8,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month RI.

11. Considering the facts that the incident is related to the year 2010 and the accused-appellant is not a habitual offender and he had no prior criminal antecedents and he is an ailing person of old age, this Court is of the opinion that the sentence as awarded by the trial court seems to be just and proper, which does not call for any interference by this