IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B. P. SHARMA

th

ON THE 16 OF OCTOBER, 2025 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 421 of 2006 DASHRATH Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri Ratnesh Yadav, Proxy Counsel on behalf of Shri Vibhor Shukla - Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Atul Dwivedi - P.L. for the respondent/State.

ORDER This appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2) of the Cr.P.C. r/w Section 415 of B.N.S.S. against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.11.2005 passed in Special S.T.No.37/2004 by Special Judge, N.D.P.S., Jabalpur. whereby learned Judge has held the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 8/20 (B)(2)(b) of the N.D.P.S.

1/2 Act and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 1 years and fine of Rs.1000/-

in default of payment of fine appellant to undergo R.I. for 1 month.

2. As per the prosecution story, on the information of Sub Inspector of Madan Mahal Police Station, Jabalpur, the Police seized 4 Kilogram Ganja from the possession of the appellant. Thereafter an offence was registered against the appellant at Crime No.451/2004, Police Station Madan Mahal District Jabalpur under Sections 8/20 of the N.D.P.S. Act. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the competent Court.

3. After recording the statements of prosecution witnesses and appreciating the evidence led by parties, learned trial Court found the appellant guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 8/20 (B)(2)(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act and sentenced him as mentioned above. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

4. At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not want to challenge the conviction of the appellant recorded under Section 8/20 (B)(2)(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act by the Trial Court, but has prayed for reduction of jail sentence. It is submitted that the incident had taken place in the year 2004 i.e. almost 21 years ago. It is also submitted that the appellant has already served out 18 months incarceration so far. In view of the above, it is prayed that appellant’s jail sentence may be reduced/modified to the extent of period already undergone by him as no fruitful purpose would get served by sending him behind the bars again.

5. Learned counsel for the State has supported the findings recorded by the Trial Court and has submitted that after appreciating the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the Trial Court has rightly found the appellant guilty for the aforesaid offence and therefore prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of entire record of the case, I am inclined to allow this appeal in part upon finding some force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant.

8. Though the appellant has not made any attempt to assail the finding of their conviction on merits, yet with a view to satisfy myself as to whether the findings of the Court below with regard to conviction are legally sustainable or not, I perused the entire record and considered all the facts and circumstances of the case, especially the statements of prosecution witnesses and defence witnesses. I am satisfied that no case is made out to interfere in the findings of the Court below on merits. Upon perusal of the record, it reveals that the findings of the trial Court are based upon proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, therefore, the findings of conviction under Section 8/20 (B)(2)(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act recorded by the trial Court are upheld.

9. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and the period of jail sentence already undergone by the appellant which is 18 months days and that the appellant was facing trial since year 2004, I am of the considered view that the ends of justice would be met if the appellant is sentenced for the period already undergone by him by enhancing the fine amount.

10. Conseq