Partly allowed

Jai Hind v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC9 May 2019CRLA/6027/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court in criminal appeal examined whether the recovery of diazepam tablets constituted a small quantity. The Court found the weight fell under small quantity limits and reduced the sentence, confirming the period already undergone and imposing a fine of Rs. 10,000.

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgment and order were set aside. Appellant sentenced to the period already undergone with a fine of Rs. 10,000.

Jai Hind Vs State of U.P. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 77

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6027 of 2008

¶4

Appellant :- Jai Hind Respondent :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Vijay Bahadur Singh,Ram Kishor Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate

¶5

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Ram Kishore Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Mayank Mishra (B.H.), learned counsel appearing for the State and perused the record.

¶7

This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant-Jai Hind against the judgment and order dated 27.8.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC No.2), Hamirpur in Special Case No. 78 of 2006, arising out Case Crime No. 926 of 2006, under Section 18/22 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short 'N.D.P.S., Act', 1985), Police Station Rath, District Hamirpur whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced under Section 8/22 of the N.D.P.S. Act for four years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.30,000/-. In case of default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo one year additional imprisonment.

¶8

According to prosecution case, 1020 tablets of diazepam were recovered from the possession of the appellant on 2.10.2006. The weight of tablets of diazepam was found 10 gms and 200 milligram, which is covered under below the commercial quantity. Maximum punishment prescribed under Section 8/22 of the N.D.P.S., Act is six months and fine of Rs.10,000/-.

¶9

From perusal of the record, it transpires that the appellant was arrested by the Police personnel on 4.10.2006

¶10

¶11

and he was enlarged on bail on by co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 20.12.2006 and he was released from jail on 23.12.2006 i.e. two months and nineteen days he was in jail.

¶12

A case was registered. Charge-sheet was submitted. After submission of charge-sheet, cognizance was taken and charges were framed against the appellant. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he denied the charges levelled against him and pleaded to be not guilty and claimed to be tried the case.

¶13

After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and District Government Counsel (Criminal), the impugned judgment and order was passed. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he does not want to argue the case on the point of conviction. 8. On the point of sentence, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the incident is of the year 2006; thirteen years period have elapsed. Only 1020 (10.200 millilgram) tablets of diazepam recovered from the possession of the appellant, which comes small quantity under Section 8/22 of the N.D.P.S. Act and prescribed sentence is one year and fine of Rs.10,000/- and the incident is of the year 2006 and at that time the maximum sentence was six months with fine of Rs.10,000/-. By amendment which was effected from 1.5.2014, sentence was enhanced upto one year and fine upto Rs.2,00,000/- but at the time of incident, there was no provision to punish the appellant for maximum sentence i.e. one year. According to Schedule of N.D.P.S. Act, upto 20 gms. diazepam is covered under the small quantity. Actually, quantity of diazepam tablets, which was recovered from the possession of the appellant was found 10 gms. and 200 milligram only, which comes under Section 22 of sub-clause (a) of the N.D.P.S. Act and is not covered under Section 22 of sub-clause (b) of the N.D.P.S.

¶14

¶15

Act. Since punishment awarded to the appellant is not correct in the eye of law, hence a lenient view may be taken because the appellant had already undergone imprisonment for three months. Interest of justice would be served, If the appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone with a fine of Rs.10,000/-.

¶16

This Court finds substance in the argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant that 1020 tablets of diazepam was recovered from the possession of the appellant. Maximum weight of one tablet is 10 milligram, 5 milligram and 2 milligram. The maximum weight of recovered tablets of diazepam would be 10 gms and 200 millilgram .e. 10.2 gms. Maximum limit is upto 20 gms and the diazepam recovered from the possession of the appellant comes under the small quantity. According to Schedule of N.D.P.S. Act as well as weight of the tablets, which was recovered from the possession of the appellant was found 10 gms. and 200 milligram. Hence sentence awarded by the trial court is not proper and not covered under Section 22 of sub-clause (b) of the N.D.P.S. Act but it covers under Section 22 of sub-clause (a) of the N.D.P.S. Act.

¶17

From perusal of the record, this Court finds that a lenient view may be taken in favour of the appellant. Hence, ends of justice would be served, if the appellant-Jai Hind be sentenced to the period already undergone with a fine of Rs.10,000/-.

¶18

The appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 27.8.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC No.2), Hamirpur is set aside. Appellant-Jai Hind is sentenced to the period already undergone with fine of Rs.10,000/-.

¶19

The appellant-Jain Hind is directed to deposit the aforesaid fine within a period of two months from today.

¶20

¶21

Office is directed to send a copy of this order along with lower court record to the concerned court immediately for information and compliance. Compliance report be submitted within one month.

¶22

Order Date :- 9.5.2019 OP

Jai Hind v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jai Hind v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Ashrey and Another Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Shakeela Vs State of U.P.

Kanha Vs State of U.P.

Naiyyare Azam Vs State of U.P.

Surendra Pratap Vs State of U.P.

State of U.P. Vs Arun Kumar