JUDGMENT

1. With consent, the matter is heard finally.

2. This criminal appeal is preferred under section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the appellant being aggrieved by judgment dated 30.4.2024 passed by Special Judge (under NDPS Act), Indore District Indore (MP) in Special Sessions Trial No.700014 of 2016 whereby the appellant has been convicted for offence punishable under section 8 (c) read with Section 20 (b) (ii) (B) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (herein after referred to as the Act) and sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- along with default stipulation.

3. As per the prosecution story, on 3.4.2016 the concerning police has received a secret information regarding contraband article and after that concerning police took action on the information received and they reached on the spot and caught the appellant as well as another co-accused Anar Ji S/o Bapu Patel and there is a total recovery of 9 kilogram of ganja from their possession and police arrested the appellant and co-accused.

4. The learned trial Court, after considering the evidence and material available on record has convicted the appellant, as stated above in para No.1.

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 merit and did not assail the finding of conviction part of the 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 two years and twenty five days custody period. The appellant 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 eight years, therefore, he prayed that the appeal be partly allowed and the sentence awarded to the appellant 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 v. The State of Madhya Pradesh) decided on 12.5.2023 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 v. State of M.P. passed in CRA No.12105/2023 decided on 1.12.2023 wherein this Bench has passed the sentence of six months out of four years of imprisonment by enhancing the fine from Rs.30,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/-. As well as, in the case of Labhchand v. State of M.P. passed in CRA No.15379/2023 and Nitesh v. the State of Madhya Pradesh, passed in CRA No. 15614/2023 which were decided on 16.1.2023 wherein the appeals were partly allowed and the sentence under section 8(b)/20(a)(i) of the NDPS Act awarded to the appellants were reduced to two years R.I. from 04 years by maintaining the fine of Rs.50,000/-.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent - State of Madhya Pradesh 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 perused the record.

9. So for as the contentions on merit 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 found that the case of the prosecution is well supported by the witnesses and documentary testimony. The procedure was well followed by the prosecution and the witnesses of prosecution have profoundly supported the prosecution case. The trial Court has well consi