Order

27/02/2025 Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 415 of B.N.S.S. (old Section 374(2) Cr.P.C.) against the judgment dated 15.02.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases No.2, Chittorgarh in Session Case No.244/2014 (05/2006) by which the learned Judge convicted and sentenced the petitioner as under:-

Brief facts of the case are that on 15.07.2005, Bhairu Singh, SHO, Police Station Bhadsouda along with his team stopped a Tata Sumo bearing registration No.GJ-12-P-5124 coming from Nimbahera. Police tried to stop the vehicle at Mangalwad toll tax post, but it did not stop and fled from there. Police chased the vehicle and searched it. Upon searching the vehicle, 07 quintals 28 Kgs of opium powder was recovered in 18 sacks from the appellant without any valid licence and permit. It was also alleged that the accused-appellant was carrying an illegal fire arm.

The police registered the FIR and started investigation. After investigation, the police filed challan against the present appellant for offence under Section 8/15 of NDPS Act and under Section 3/25 of Arms Act and Section 279, 336, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B of IPC. Thereafter, the charge for offence under Section 8/15 of NDPS Act, Section 3/25 Arms Act and Section 336, 279, 471, 467, 420 & 120B of IPC was framed by the trial court against the appellant, who denied the charges and claimed trial.

During the course of trial, the prosecution examined twenty one witnesses and various documents were also exhibited. Thereafter, statement of appellant under section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded.

Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 15.02.2025 convicted and sentenced the appellant for offence under Section 8/15 of NDPS Act and Sections 279 & 336 of IPC as mentioned earlier. It is also mentioned by the trial Court in his order that the recovered contraband is below commercial quantity.

At the threshold, learned counsel for the appellant does not challenge the finding of conviction but it is submitted that since the occurrence relates back to year 2005 and the appellant has so far suffered a sentence of one year & four months, out of total sentence of two years and six months’ RI, therefore, it is prayed that the substantive sentence awarded to the appellant for the aforesaid offences may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant relied upon judgment of this Court in the case of Mohammad Ali v. State of Rajasthan reported in 2013(4) CJ(Cri.) (Raj.) 1914, Niyamat Ali Nemu v. State of Rajasthan reported in 2013(4) CJ(Cri.) (Raj.) 1915, Sher Singh vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2016(1) WLN 156 (Raj.)

On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate General opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. The learned AAG submitted that there is neither any occasion to interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused appellant nor any compassion or sympathy is called for in the said case.

I have perused the evidence of the prosecution as well as defence and the judgment passed by the trial court regarding conviction of the accused-appellant.

Undisputedly, the incident relates back to the year 2005 and the appellant has so far undergone a period of about one year and four months incarceration, out of the total sentence of two years and six months’ R.I. so also suffered the mental agony and trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking to the over-all circumstances and the fact that the appellant has remained behind the bars for considerable time, it will be just and proper if the sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under Section 8/15 NDPS Act and Sections 279 & 336 of IPC is reduced to the per