Chhotelal Singh Patel vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Subhash Kakade, J.

1.Through this appeal appellant Chhotelal Singh Patel has assailed the judgment dated 20/03/2008 passed by learned Special Judge, NDPS Act, Satna in Special Case No. 5/05, whereby he has been convicted and sentenced in the manner stated here-in-after:-

Under Section 20-B II(C) of N.D.P.S. Act , sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of ten years with fine of Rs. 1.00 Lac, in default to suffer S.I. for one year.

The prosecution case in short is that on 15/03/2005, at 2.45 PM, the SHO of PS-Rampur Baghelan received an information that appellant Chhotelal and one Mahavir Singh kept Ganja illegally inside their house and are used to sell the same. After receiving information, the SHO prepared a Panchnama and a raid was made. Police party found father of the appellant in the house who disclosed the fact that appellant had gone to cultivate the field. The appellant was called and information with regard to his search was supplied to him and after taking consent of the appellant, search of the house was taken and four bags of Ganja were recovered. Handspring balance was also recovered from another room. The alleged contraband article was measured and the same was found 66.200 kg. Out of seized quantity of Ganja, two samples of 100 gms were taken out for its chemical examination and were sent to FSL, Sagar . After recording the statement of prosecution witnesses and completing the investigation, the police charge sheeted the appellant and co-accused Mahavir Singh.

In order to bring home the charges against appellant the prosecution examined eleven witnesses and exhibited 33 documents and the defence exhibited 09 documents. Devendra Singh (DW.1) and Shaliq Tiwari (DW.2) were examined as defence witnesses.

The learned Special Judge acquitted co-accused Mahavir Singh by giving him benefit of doubt, but held the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 20-B II(C) of N.D.P.S. Act, convicted and sentenced him on the counts mentioned in above para.

Shri R.B.Goutam, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court committed error in holding the appellant guilty under Section 20-B II(C) of N.D.P.S. Act. It is also submitted that learned trial Court committed grave error in overlooking material contradictions, omissions in depositions of prosecution witnesses. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that this Court vide order dated 02.09.14 obliged the appellant to be released on bail, but poor fellow does not manage to deposit the fine amount of Rs. 1.00 Lac, hence still under custody and has completed more than clear nine years of jail sentence.

Per contra, Shri Vijay Kumar Pandey, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State has submitted though the appellant has served substantive period of sentence even then he does not deserve any benefit out of it because after due appreciation of prosecution evidence, the learned trial Court has rightly found the offence proved against the appellant, which requires no interference.

The State does not prefer any legal action against acquittal of co-accused Mahavir Singh.

Heard learned counsel for the parties at length, perused the depositions of the prosecution witnesses; the material exhibits tendered and proved by the prosecution; statement of the appellant recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C., and also perused the documents produced by the defence; and the impugned judgment. After reflecting over the matter, I am implicitly satisfied that on merits, the conviction of the appellant, warrants no interference.

Learned trial Court rightly came to the conclusion that appellant was the owner of the disputed house from where the Ganja has been recovered. Other discrepancies which have been highlighted do not really earn the status of contraction to make the evidence of these witnesses impeachable, incredible or not beyond reproach. Therefore, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed on its merits.

Now, the question arises that as to how a balance should be struck and maintained in regard to the sentence? It is pertinent to importantly mentioned here that 38 years old appellant Chhotelal Singh Patel is under custody since his initial date of arrest i.e. 15.03.2005, that way, he has served out more than nine and half years, the maximum period of jail sentence.

But, the sentence awarded to the appellant is not excessive and calls for no reduction, because the jail sentence of the appellant and the quantum of fine imposed on him is concerned, I find that it is the minimum stipulated under the N.D.P.S. Act.

However, I feel that the sentence imposed in default of payment of fine namely one year S.I., is far too excessive and calls for reduction. I feel that the ends of justice would be squarely satisfied if the sentence in default of payment of fine of Rs. 1.00 Lac be reduced from one year S.I. to three months S.I.

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed, maintaining the jail sentence of the appellant and the sentence of fine, but reduce the sentence in default of payment of fine from one year S.I. to three months S.I. The appellant is in jail and shall be released therefrom only after he serves out his sentence in the aforesaid manner. If the appellant is served out his entire jail sentence after calculation of remission period as per Jail Manual and other Act and Rules, he be set at liberty, if not required in any other criminal case.

Appeal partly allowed.