The court emphasized the importance of proving the case beyond reasonable doubt and considered procedural irregularities in the sampling process, leading to the appellant's entitlement to the benefit of doubt and the reduction of his sentence.

Headnote:
NDPS Act - Conviction and Sentence - 8, 15(c) - 42, 57, 50, 55, 52, 18(b) - The court discussed the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985, especially sections 42, 57, 50, 55, 52, and 18(b) and their application in the case. The court also considered the quantity of the contraband and its relation to the commercial quantity as per the Act. The decision was influenced by the interpretation of the sentencing policy and the gravity of the offense.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant was convicted under the NDPS Act for transporting poppy straw. The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the appellant was found to be entitled to the benefit of doubt. The court reduced the appellant's sentence based on the quantity of the contraband and the procedural irregularities in the sampling process.
Finding of the Court:

The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt, and his sentence was reduced to 8 years' imprisonment. In default of payment of fine, he was sentenced to the period already spent by him in jail over and above the 8 years of incarceration. The appellant was ordered to be released forthwith.
Issues: Failure of the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, procedural irregularities in the sampling process, and the appellant's entitlement to the benefit of doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The prosecution's failure to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, procedural irregularities in the sampling process, and the appellant's entitlement to the benefit of doubt influenced the court's decision to reduce the appellant's sentence.
Final Decision: Criminal Appeal No. 1173/2015 stands partly allowed and disposed of. The appellant's sentence was reduced, and he was ordered to be released forthwith.

JUDGMENT SUBODH ABHYANKAR, J. : – This appeal under section 374(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved of his conviction and sentence.

The appellant stands convicted by the impugned judgment dated 28-7-2015, passed by the learned Special Judge (under NDPS Act), Mandsaur District Mandsaur (MP) in Special Sessions Trial No. 09/2012, whereby the learned Judge of the trial Court has sentenced him, as mentioned herein below : –

Accused Conviction Sentence Fine Amount Sentence in default of payment of fine Yunus s/o Rahmat Shah 8 read with 15(c) of NDPS Act 12 years Rigorous Imprisonment Rs. 1,00,000/- 1 Year RI

2. In brief, the facts of the case are that on 23-10-2011 at around 04.30 PM in the evening, the Police Mandsaur apprehended a truck bearing registration number UP-25 AT-5188 at Gram Dhandhoda Phanta on Bhavgarh-Dalauda Road. Although the truck did not initially spot, but it was chased by the Police in a Jeep and was stopped. After stopping the truck, two person got down and ran away from the spot, however, the Driver of the vehicle was caught then and there only, who informed his name to be Yunus s/o Rahmat Shah (the present appellant) and the person who ran away from the spot were Nasir and Jahid, who are still at large.

3. After giving the due information to the Driver, the truck was searched by PW-15 R. P. Rana, Sub Inspector and it was found that 199 white bags containing poppy straw, were surreptitiously being transported hidden beneath the 101 bags of fodder, which was seized and after mixing the contents of these bags and making a homogeneous mixture of poppy straw, its samples were taken and were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. The quantity of poppy straw was found to be 39 quintal and 80 kilogram.

4. After the investigation was completed, the charge-sheet was filed and the appellant was tried before the learned Special Judge (under NDPS Act) Mandsaur, District Mandsaur (MP), who vide his judgment dated 28-7-2015 has convicted the appellant, as aforesaid; and being aggrieved, this appeal has been preferred by the appellant.

5. Shri Akhilesh Kumar Saxena, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the prosecution has not proceeded with the seizure of the contraband, in accordance with the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (herein after referred to as the Act), especially sections 42, 57 as also sections 50, 55 and 52.

6. In the alternative, counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has been sentenced to twelve years imprisonment and he has already completed ten years and seven months as of now; and thus, the sentence awarded to him (which is twelve years RI) be reduced to ten years RI only, which is the minimum sentence under the Act.

7. In support of his contention, counsel has also relied upon the decision dated 25-2-2021 rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1776/2016, Rakesh vs. State of M. P., wherein this Court has reduced the sentence from eleven years to ten years, the minimum prescribed sentence under section 18 (b) of the Act; and in default of payment of fine, his sentence was reduced to six months from one year.

8. Shri Akash Sharma, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and it is submitted that all the mandatory provisions of the Act have been complied with by the prosecution and so far as the sentence passed against the appellant is concerned, in the case of Rakesh (supra), the contraband was found to be 4.500 kilogram of opium, the commercial quantity of which is 2.5 kilogram, whereas in the present case, the contraband seized is 39 quintal 80 kilogram of poppy straw, which is far more than the commercial quantity (which is 50 kilogram).

9. Counsel for the respondent/State has also relied upon a decision dated 20-9-2021 rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1409/2016,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document