JUDGEMENT :

This criminal appeal is preferred under section 374 of Cr.P.C. by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 12.02.2022, passed by Special Judge, NDPS Act, Jaora District Ratlam in S.T. No.06/2017, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 15(b) r/w Section 25 of NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo 05 years RI with fine of Rs.50,000/-, with default stipulation.

2. As per the prosecution story, on 27.03.2017, police Station Jaora has received a discreet information and acting upon which, the police intercepted a vehicle Indigo Car bearing registration No.MP-09-HE-5979 coming from Dhodhar to Namli on Highway. After following the due procedure, the police arrested the appellant and recovered 42 KG poppy straw containing in two sacks. After following the due procedure, the police team arrested the applicant and registered the offence accordingly.

3. The appellant was tried and charged under Section 8/15(b), 25 and 29 of NDPS Act. The learned trial Court, after considering the evidence and material available on record has convicted the appellant, as stated above in para No.1 of this order while acquitted the co-accused Nadeem (deceased).

4. The appellant has preferred the present appeal mainly on the ground that judgment and order of the trial Court is contrary to law and facts available on record. The learned trial Court committed error in not considering the material contradictions and omissions appeared in the statements of prosecution witnesses. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that the provisions of Section 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act has not been complied with. It is further submitted that the prosecution witnesses of seizure have turned hostile and have not supported the case of prosecution.

5. 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 not assail the finding part of judgment. He confines his arguments on the point of sentence. Counsel for the appellant assures that the appellant will not involve in such criminal activities in future. He also submitted that the appellant has suffered approximately one year custody period. He further submitted that he 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 07 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 deem fits in the interest of justice. Hence, his sentence be reduced to the period already undergone.

6. In support of his contention, counsel for the appellant has placed reliance over the judgment passed in CRA No.7063/2022 (Mukesh Kumar Jatav Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh) decided on 12.05.2023 wherein co-ordinate Bench of this Court has reduced and undergone the sentence of the appellant in only 09 months out of 10 years. Similarly, in this Bench in the case of Tulsiram vs. State of M.P. passed in CRA No.12105/2023 decided on 01.12.2023 wherein this Bench has passed the sentence of six months out of four years of imprisonment by enhancing the fine from Rs.30000/- to Rs.100000/-.

7. Learned Govt. Advocate 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.

8. I have considered rival contentions of the parties and have perused the record.

9. 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 fou