The main legal point established in the judgment is the discretion of the court in awarding the minimum sentence guided by the principles of proportionality and the importance of compliance with mandatory provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act.

Headnote:
N.D.P.S. Act - Criminal Appeal - Section 8/21(b) - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Section 8/21(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act and its related sections including Section 50, 52, 55, and 57. The court also referred to the provisions of Section 20 of the N.D.P.S. Act and emphasized the discretion of the court in awarding the minimum sentence guided by the principles of proportionality. The judgment highlighted the importance of compliance with the provisions related to search, seizure, and chemical examination of contraband substances.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Section 8/21(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act for possession of a contraband narcotic drug. The appellant contested the charges, citing lack of witness production by the prosecution and non-compliance with mandatory provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act. The appellant argued for proportionality of the sentence and referred to similar cases for comparison.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to produce witnesses and comply with mandatory provisions. The court emphasized the discretion of the court in awarding the minimum sentence and considered the proportionality of the sentence. The court also highlighted the reformative and corrective approach in criminal justice administration.
Issues: The issues included lack of witness production, non-compliance with mandatory provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act, and proportionality of the sentence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the lack of witness production, non-compliance with mandatory provisions, and the principles of proportionality and reformative approach in criminal justice administration.
Final Decision: The sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment awarded to the appellant was reduced by four years, and the fine was upheld. The appeal was disposed of with the modified sentence.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Anirudh Kumar Singh, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the record.

2. The present criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 13.08.2021 and punishment order dated 25.08.2021 passed by Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act), Court No. 10, Barabanki in Special Sessions Trial (Special Criminal Case) No. 28/2014 (State of U.P. vs. Kamran) arising out of Case Crime No. 358/2013 relating to P.S. Zaidpur, District Barabanki, whereby he was convicted with sentence under Section 8/21(b) of N.D.P.S. Act for a period of five years rigorous imprisonment and with fine of Rs. 25,000/-and in case of default of payment of fine further six months additional imprisonment is awarded.

3. As per prosecution story, present appellant including one other co-accused person namely Anwar was arrested on 17.11.2013 and a contraband narcotic drug i.e. 100 gm of morphine was recovered from each of the accused. He submits that infact two FIR’s were lodged one is bearing No. 357 of 2013 and the next one is bearing no. 358 of 2013. The aforesaid recovery was shown from both the accused persons by a common recovery memo. Common investigation was done and charge sheet was filed bearing no. 13 of 2013. He submits that trials were separately done and one of the trial, which was proceeded in the matter of Anwar i.e., Sessions Trial No. 27/2014, wherein, Anwar had confessed the guilt and was awarded a punishment of one year rigorous imprisonment and with fine of Rs. 15,000/-. So far as the present appellant is concerned, the trial proceeded in S.S.T. No. 28/2014. During the trial appellant was enlarged on bail. At the level of framing of the charges, the present appellant denied the charges and chose to contest the case and in such an event, trial proceeded in respect with the present appellant.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that infact since 2013 no witness was produced by the prosecution up till 2021 and the appellant was running on each and every date and appeared before the court as and when the case was fixed. He also added that prosecution had failed to produced any witness and as such it is a case where there is no any witness was produced for examination. He also submits that later on, when under the compelling circumstances, he moved an application for confession of the aforesaid offence, the trial proceeded in view of the application of confession so submitted.

5. He submits that on 11.08.2021, statement of present appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and after considering the statement of the present appellant as well the material on record the trial court has passed the judgment dated 13.08.2021 and punishment order was passed on 25.08.2021. By the aforesaid judgment the sentence of 5 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 25,000/- was awarded against the appellant.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the trial court has failed to appreciate the evidences which was adduced before it. It was also not considered by the trail court that there is non compliance of mandatory provision of Section 50 of N.D.P.S. Act as the appellant was not produced before the Gazetted Officer or Magistrate for his search. The said occurrence was taken place on 17.11.2013 and after framing of the charges, not a single witness or evidence was produced before the court by prosecution in spite of full co-operation of the appellant. The quantum of sentence has also been fixed harshly. It has also not been considered by the trial court that the appellant had no criminal history and the identically situated co-accused who confessed his guilt was awarded one year sentence in the similar circumstances. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that provision of Section 52, 55 and 57 of the N.D.P.S. Act was not complied with and the prosecution had failed to prove that the alleged contraband substance