Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
(DIVISION BENCH)
J. K. Maheshwari and J. P. Gupta, JJ.
Madhav Prasad alias Maddu Gupta v. State of M. P.
Criminal Appeal No.683 of 2006 (Jabalpur); against the judgment dated 28.2.2006 passed by the Special Judge, NDPS Katni in Special Sessions Trial No. 4 of 2004; Decided on 17.8.2018
(2) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 -- S.31
-- Penal Code, 1860 -- S.75 -- provisions are pari materia. [Para 8
(3) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 -- S.31
-- Criminal P. C., 1973 -- Ss. 228, 211 and 298 -- M. P. Rules and Orders (Criminal) -- Rr. 175 to 179 -- person previously convicted for offence under NDPS Act -- being tried for subsequent offence -- charge under section 31 of NDPS Act is required to be framed against him specifying date and place of said previous offence -- Court has to record finding in this regard to award enhanced punishment. [Para 10
(4) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 -- S. 8/20(b)(ii) (B) and 31 -- Criminal P. C., 1973 -- Ss. 211 and 298 -- M. P. Rules and Orders (Criminal) -- Rr. 175 to 179 -- charge under section 31 of NDPS Act not framed -- crime register not extract certified by officer having custody of record of Court -- no certificates signed by officer-in-charge of jail in which accused underwent punishment -- no warrant of commitment under which punishment was suffered -- trial Court passed judgment without affording opportunity to lead evidence regarding identity of accused and to rebut said charge -- enhanced sentence awarded by Court on pretext of previous conviction without following procedure prescribed -- not in conformity with law -- set aside. [Para 11
¼1½ Lokid vks"kf/k vkSj eu% izHkkoh inkFkZ vf/kfu;e] 1985 && /kkjk 8@20¼[k½ (ii) ¼[k½ rFkk 31 && naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 211 rFkk 298 && e-iz- fu;e rFkk vkns'k ¼vkijkf/kd½ && fu& 175 ls 179 && vijk/k jftLVj esa vfHk;qä ds uke dh izfof"V && ;g ugha ekuk tk ldrk fd vihykFkhZ vkSj mä ekeys dk vfHk;qä ,d gh gSa && vfHk;qDr dh igpku ml O;fDr ds :i esa gksus] ftls bl izdkj nks"kfl) ;k nks"keqDr fd;k x;k Fkk] ds ckjs esa lk{; vfHkys[k ij yk;k tkuk vko';d gS && iwoZrj nks"kflf) dk leLr C;kSjk n'kkZrs gq, Lokid vks"kf/k vfèkfu;e dh /kkjk 31 ds v/khu vkjksi fojfpr djuk U;k;ky; ds fy, vfuok;Z && vfHk;qDr dks Lo;a dh izfrj{kk djus dk volj nsrs gq, iwoZrj nks"kflf) rdZiw.kZ lk{; }kjk lkfcr fd;k tkuk vko';d && iwoZrj nks"kflf) bl izdkj fu"df"kZr djus ds i'pkr~] ijorhZ vijk/k ds fy, fHkUu naMkns'k ikfjr fd;k tk ldrk gSA ¼iSjk 7] 8 ,oa 10 ¼2½ Lokid vks"kf/k vkSj eu% izHkkoh inkFkZ vf/kfu;e] 1985 && /kkjk 31 && naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 75 && mica/k lefo"k;d gSaA ¼iSjk 8 ¼3½ Lokid vks"kf/k vkSj eu% izHkkoh inkFkZ vf/kfu;e] 1985 && /kkjk 31 && naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 228] 211 rFkk 298 && e-iz- fu;e rFkk vkns'k ¼vkijkfèkd½ && fu& 175 ls 179 && O;fDr iwoZ esa Lokid vks"kf/k vf/kfu;e ds vèkhu vijk/k ds fy, nks"kfl) && i'pkr~orhZ vijk/k ds fy, fopkj.kk/khu && mDr iwoZrj vijk/k dk fnukad vkSj LFkku fofufnZ"V djrs gq, mlds fo#) Lokid vks"kf/k vfèkfu;e dh /kkjk 31 ds v/khu vkjksi fojfpr fd;k tkuk visf{kr && c<+k gqvk naMkns'k vf/kfu.khZr djus ds fy, U;k;ky; dks bl ckjs esa fu"d"kZ vfHkfyf[kr djuk gksrk gSA ¼iSjk 10 ¼4½ Lokid vks"kf/k vkSj eu% izHkkoh inkFkZ vf/kfu;e] 1985 && /kkjk 8@20¼[k½
Maheshwari, J.-- 1. This appeal under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, be called as “Cr.P.C.”) has been filed arising out of the judgment dated 28.2.2006 passed by the Special Judge, NDPS Katni in Special Session Trial No.04/04 convicting the appellant for the charge under section 8/20(b)(ii)(B) and section 31 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act (hereinafter referred to as “NDPS Act”) and sentenced to undergo 15 years rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.1,50,000/- and in default to suffer 2 years and 6 months rigorous imprisonment in addition.
2. As per prosecution allegation, on the date of incident i.e. 9.6.2002 at about 10:45 a.m., the Assistant Sub-Inspector Police, Station Bahoriband, District Katni Mr. K.K. Tripathi has received information from informant that the accused residing in the house of Kallu Barman as tenant is in possession of two packets of Cannabis Hemp (Ganja), if immediate step is not taken the contraband may be sold by him. After lodging the Rojnamcha Sanha, he immediately proceeded alongwith the Constable Shrikant Pathak and called the independent witnesses Pappu Yadav and Ajay from the bus stand Bahoriband preparing the Panchanama to that effect. On interception, the contraband was seized and the offence was registered. In the investigation done as per the provisions of NDPS Act, the prosecution found that the accused committed the offence, however, challan was filed in a competent Court where charges under section 8/20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act were framed against the accused who abjured the guilt and took the defence of false implication.
3. The trial Court after recording the evidence of the witnesses said the charges framed have been proved beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, convicted the appellant by the impugned judgment. The Session Court while sentencing the accused observed that the appellant is the second time convict, therefore, as per section 31 of the NDPS Act punished him further to the extent one half period of the maximum term of sentence, adding sentence of 5 years in the maximum sentence and awarded the sentence of 15 years along with an amount of fine of Rs.1,50,000/- and in default 2 years and 6 months rigorous imprisonment.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that accused is in custody from the date of incident i.e. 9.6.2004 and he has served the actual sentence of more than 14 years. In such circumstances, the appellant do not wish to challenge the findings of conviction on merit and on the point of sentence enhanced being previous convict with the aid of section 31 of the NDPS Act, without framing charge in view of the provisions as contained under section 211(7) of the CrPC, and without following the procedure prescribed in the M.P. Rules and Orders (Criminal) to prove previous conviction, sentence awarded to appellant is unsustainable. Thus, without framing the charge of section 31 of the NDPS Act and following the procedure, the sentence as directed adding one half time of the maximum term of the sentence is contrary to law. Otherwise, the appellant has already served the sentence of 14 years in total, which include sentence served due to non-payment of fine, therefore, considering the aforesaid, the sentence to such extent may be set aside and the appeal may be allowed in part, releasing him from the jail.
5. On the other hand, learned P.L. though opposed the prayer but looking to the provisions of section 31 of the NDPS Act and section 211(7) of the CrPC and also the procedure as contemplated under M.P. Rules and Orders (Criminal), it is urged that this Court may consider the provisions of law and pass appropriate order, which may be circulated to all the Subordinate Courts of M.P. thereby the procedure in the cases of previous convict may be followed in the judgments.
6. After hearing learned counsel appearing on behalf of both the parties, and perusal of the record we are of the view
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
