The court has the discretion to consider the quantity of the narcotic substance, the appellant's custody period, and the prescribed sentence in determining the appropriate jail sentence under the NDPS Act.

Judgment

N.K. Gupta, J.;-

1. This criminal appeal is preferred by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 30/3/2009 passed by the Special Judge under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, Katni in Special Case No. 32/2008, whereby the appellant was convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 8 read with Section 20(b) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short "NDPS Act") and sentenced for three years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 20,000/-. In default of payment of fine amount, six months' RI was also directed. The prosecution's case, in short, is that on 22.11.2007 Sub Inspector A.V. Singh of Police Station Katni received an information that the appellant kept some Ganja in his house, therefore after adopting the entire procedure, 5.500 kg Ganja was seized from the appellant. The sample was procured and the entire property was duly sealed. The sample was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. From its report, it was established that the seized property was Ganja. After due investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the Special Judge, Katni.

2. The appellant-accused abjured his guilt. He did not take any specific plea in the matter. However, one Sunil Dhai (DW-1) was examined in defence.

3. The learned Special Judge after considering the evidence adduced by the parties convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 8 read with Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act and sentenced him as mentioned above.

4. The appellant was brought from the jail due to his non-appearance where he is in jail due to another case. Since he has no counsel, therefore Shri Satyam Agrawal, Advocate was requested to assist the Court for the appellant as Amicus-Curie. Shri Satyam Agrawal has accepted the brief.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

6. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking at the facts and circumstances of the case specially the version given by the appellant on 31.10.2012, it is apparent that the appellant does not want to challenge his appeal on merits, but he has prayed for reduction of the sentence. It is apparent that the trial Court found the appellant to be the first offender, however a case of NDPS Act was registered against him. If someone keeps one kilo Ganja, then it is a case of small quantity for which six months' rigorous imprisonment is maximum sentence. In the present case, 5.500 kg Ganja was found with the appellant which is higher than the small quantity, but lower than the commercial quantity. Looking to the quantity of Ganja and sentence prescribed for small quantity, the jail sentence directed by the trial Court appears to be harsh. The appellant remained in the custody for 487 days during the trial and thereafter he remained in the custody for three months and thirteen days during the appeal. Hence he remained in the custody for 600 days i.e. 20 months. Looking to the quantity of Ganja found with the appellant, the custody period of the appellant would be an appropriate sentence against him. He has already deposited the fine amount before the trial Court. Hence it is a fit case in which the jail sentence directed against the appellant may be reduced to the period which he has already undergone in the custody.

7. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal of the present appellant is partly allowed. The conviction directed for the offence under Section 8 read with Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act is hereby maintained, but the jail sentence of the appellant is reduced to the period which he has already undergone in the custody. There is no change in the fine amount.

8. At present the appellant is on bail in the instant case, and therefore his presence is no more required before this Court. It is directed that his bail bonds shall stand discharged. He was summoned before this Court by the production warrant, and therefore the jail authorities of District Jail Katni be informed that the a