Ramkripal Patel vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Rajendra Menon, J.—Appellant Ramkripal Patel, who has been convicted to undergo 10 months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in default of payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment for three months, for an offence u/s 20(b)(ii)(B), of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, has filed this appeal challenging his conviction and sentence. Appellant was apprehended on 16.8.2005, at about 6.15 in the evening by a Constable posted in Mouganj at a place 7 Kms away in Village Behra, in District Rewa. On searching the appellant, about 2 Kg of psychotropic substance (ganja) was seized from him. He was immediately arrested on 16.8.2005, was put to trial and by the impugned judgment dated 17.2.2006, appellant has been convicted as indicated hereinabove.

Even though during the course of hearing of the appeal Shri Sanjay Patel, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, tried to emphasize that the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant is unsustainable, the offence as alleged is not made out and he tried to indicate to this Court that the allegations are not correct. As an alternative, it was submitted by him that when the offence was committed appellant was more than 55 years of age; as on date he is more than 62 years of age; he has already undergone more than 9 months imprisonment. The offence as committed by him was the first offence and referring to the sentence imposed by the trial court and the reasons given in paragraph 25 of the impugned judgment, for convicting the appellant to undergo 10 months rigorous imprisonment, Shri Sanjay Patel emphasized that now with the passage of time and looking to the totality of the circumstances as the appellant has already undergone a substantial part of the jail sentence, it is submitted by him that the appellant would be satisfied if he is now let off by convicting him for the sentence already undergone by him, which is more than 9 months as on date.

Even though Shri Amit Pandey, learned Panel Lawyer, emphasized that the punishment awarded is proper and no interference be made, but taking note of the totality of the circumstances and the fact that the appellant is more than 62 years of age as on date, he has already remained in custody from 18.5.2005 to 17.2.2006 i.e... the date of judgment; thereafter, from 17.2.2006 upto 10.4.2006, when he was released on bail, the total period of sentence undergone by the appellant would be more than 9 months. Taking note of the circumstances and the facts as indicated in paragraph 25 of the impugned judgment, that it was the first offence by the appellant and there is no criminal record indicated at the time of conviction, it is thought appropriate to allow the second alternate submission made by Shri Sanjay Patel, as the appellant has already undergone more than 9 months and has been suffering the litigation and other aspects attached thereto since 18.5.2005 i.e... for more than 10 years now.

Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part. Even though the conviction of the appellant u/s 20(b)(ii)(B), of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 is upheld, the jail sentence of 10 months rigorous imprisonment awarded is reduced to the imprisonment already undergone by the appellant i.e.... more than 9 months; and, the fine amount deposited by the appellant is confirmed. With the aforesaid modification to the sentence of conviction, this appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated.