IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT
JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR.
_____
S.B.CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 386/2004
Kalulal vs. State of Rajasthan
with
S.B.CRIMINAL(JAIL) APPEAL No.568/2004
Kalu Lal vs. State of Rajasthan
____
Date of Order : 04.02.2010
HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S. SARRAF
___
Mr.Rohan Jain, Mr.Nawab Ali Rathore & Mr.Vipin Srivastava
for the appellant.
Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Mahla, PP for State.
____
Both the appeals have been preferred by the accused appellant Kalu Lal (one has been filed by post and another has been filed through advocate) against the judgment dated 4.3.2004 passed by Special Judge (NDPS Cases), Baran (District and Sessions Judge, Baran) in sessions case no.100/2001 whereby the accused appellant has been convicted under Section 8/15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) and he has been sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of rupees one lakh and in default of payment of the fine further rigorous imprisonment for one year.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not challenge the impugned judgment on merits and that his only prayer is that since the appellant has remained in jail for six years and five months, therefore, the sentence of imprisonment may be reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him. He also prays that as the appellant is a poor person the amount of fine be reduced.
Under Section 15 of the Act as it stood prior to its amendment in 2001, irrespective of quantity of the contraband, the offence was punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years and which might extend to twenty years and fine not less than one lakh rupees and which might extend to two lakh rupees. However, after the amendment in 2001 a categorization has been made on the basis of quantity of the contraband recovered as minimum, lesser than commercial and commercial and the extent of punishment is different for each quantity. Section 41(1) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Amendment) Act, 2001, is as under:-
Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section(2) of section 1, all cases pending before the Courts or under investigation at the commencement of this Act shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the principal Act as amended by this Act and accordingly, any person found guilty of any offence punishable under the principal Act, as it stood immediately before such commencement, shall be liable for a punishment which is lesser than the punishment for which he is otherwise liable at the date of the commission of such offence:
Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to cases pending in appeal.
The alleged recovery has been made on 18.4.2001 whereas the trial has concluded and the impugned judgment has been pronounced on 4.3.2004. Thus the trial was pending when the amending Act came into force and as such the provisions of Section 15 of the Act as amended in 2001 are applicable in this case.
The appellant has been found in possession of 21 kg crushed poppy-straw and as per the amended provisions of Section 15 of the Act the quantity of poppy-straw recovered from the possession of the appellant is less than the commercial quantity as the commercial quantity as per the Table is 50 kg and thus the punishment for the offence as committed by the appellant is imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and fine which may extend to one lakh rupees.
In this case the appellant has remained in jail for six years and five months. In the facts and circumstances of the case I am of the opinion that the period of imprisonment already undergone by the appellant is adequate as regards the sentence of imprisonment and the ends of justice will meet if the fine is reduced from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.25,000/-.
Consequently, the conviction of the appellant under Section 8/15 of the Act is upheld but the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him and the fine is reduced from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.25,000/- in default of payment of which he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.
Both the appeals stand disposed of as above.
(G.S. Sarraf), J.
Sanjay 2-3