Padma Ram vs State Of Rajasthan

Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 03.03.2011 passed by learned Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No. 46/2006 by which the learned Judge convicted the appellant for offence under Section 8/15 NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo four years R.I. alongwith fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo one month's R.I.

Brief facts of the case are that on 26.01.2006, Surendra Kumar (PW-12) SHO Police Station Ramsar, District Barmer received an information that Padma Ram is indulged in trafficking of poppy husk and he is concealing the poppy husk in a room situated in his field and selling the same near Goga Ji Temple. On the said information, SHO PS Ramsar went on the spot with other police officials and Motbirs at 3:30 Pm and found one person sitting in front of the room constructed in the field. On asking, he disclosed his name as Padma Ram. The Police officials took the search of the room and recovered two bags containing 52 kg poppy husk. The officials took the samples, seized the same, prepared the recovery memo and other documents and arrested the accused-appellant.

Thereafter the police registered a case against the accused-appellant and other accused Bhaga Ram for offence under Sections 8/15 and 8/29 of NDPS Act and started investigation. The accused Bhaga Ram was also arrested by the Polic. After investigation, the police filed challan against the present appellant for offence under Section 8/15 NDPS Act and against co-accused Bhaga Ram for offence under Section 8/29 of NDPS Act. Thereafter, the charges of the case were framed against the appellant and other accused. They denied the charges and claimed trial.

During the course of trial, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses and various documents were also exhibited. Thereafter, statements of appellant and co-accused under section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded. One witness was examined on the defence side and two documents were got exhibited.

Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 03.03.2011 acquitted the co-accused Bhaga Ram for offence under Section 8/29 of NDPS Act but convicted and sentenced the appellant for offence under Section 8/15 NDPS Act as mentioned earlier.

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 2006 and the trial court has concluded that total 48 KG poppy husk was recovered from the appellant which is below commercial quantity and further the appellant has so far suffered a sentence of about six months out of total sentence of four years, therefore, it is prayed that the substantive sentence awarded to the appellant for the aforesaid offence 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 Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. The learned PP 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.

Since the appellant's counsel does not challenge the appellant's conviction, this Court need not go into the merits of the case and accordingly, the conviction of the appellant as recorded by the learned trial court for the offence under Section 8/15 NDPS Act is maintained.

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. It is not disputed that the appellant has so far undergone a period of about six months incarceration out of the total four years' rigorous imprisonment so also suffered the 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 is reduced to the period already undergone by him while maintaining the amount of fine in the sum of Rs. 10,000/-.

Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining the appellant's conviction and sentence for offence under Section 8/15 NDPS Act, the sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone, however the amount of fine is hereby maintained. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment. Two month's time is granted to deposit the fine before the trial court. Appellant is on bail. His bail bonds stand discharged.

The record of the trial court be sent back forthwith.