Shashikant Chandrakant Thorat Vs the State of Maharashtra

1 of 6 10.APPA.1202.2019.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1202 OF 2019
IN

¶4

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.33 OF 2017

¶5

Shashikant Chandrakant ThoratApplicant
 versus
The State of MaharashtraRespondent

¶6

Mr.Ayaz Khan i/by Dilip Mishra for applicant.
Mr.A.R.Kapadnis, APP, for State.

¶7

CORAM :PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.

¶8

DATE : 25th September 2020
(LD/VC)

¶9

PC :

¶10

1.This is an application for suspension of sentence and grant of
bail pending final hearing and disposal of Criminal Appeal No.33 of
2017. The applicant has been convicted for the offence u/s 8(c) r/w
Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
Act, 1985 (`NDPS Act’) and sentenced to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in
default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months.

¶11

2.Learned advocate for applicant submitted that the applicant
was on bail during trial. He is in custody for a period of about three
years and ten months. It is submitted that the applicant was
allegedly found in possession of contraband Ganja weighing about 3
kgs. It is a non-commercial quantity. The commercial quantity
envisaged under the provisions of NDPS Act for Ganja is 20 kgs. The
rigors of Section 37 would not attract in this case qua applicant.

¶12

Digitally signed by Manish Manish S. Thatte S. Thatte Date: 2020.09.2811:18:11 +0530

¶13

2 of 6 10.APPA.1202.2019.doc

¶14

Although applicant was tried along with accused no.1 by invoking
Section 29 of NDPS Act, the applicant has been acquitted for the
offence u/s 29 of NDPS Act. The co-accused has been sentenced to
suffer rigorous imprisonment for 20 years in view of the fact that he
was found in possession of commercial quantity. Learned counsel
further submitted that maximum sentence provided to the offence
for which he has been convicted, is for a period of ten years. The
minimum is not prescribed. The Trial Court has, however, awarded
maximum punishment without taking recourse to Section 32(B) of
NDPS Act which deals with the factors to be taken into account for
imposing higher than minimum punishment.

¶15

3.In support of his submission learned counsel has relied upon
several orders passed by this Court granting bail by suspending
sentence of imprisonment in similar situation by considering the fact
that the accused therein were convicted for having in possession of
non-commercial quantity of contraband. He also relied upon the
orders granting bail pending trial wherein the accused were
convicted for the offence u/s 25A of NDPS Act. It is submitted that
this Court has granted bail to the accused in several cases wherein
the accused were found in possession of non-commercial quantity. It
is submitted that sentence awarded by the Trial Court is arbitrary
and there was no reason for awarding maximum punishment.
Learned counsel relied upon decision of Supreme Court in case of
R.Kumaravel Vs. Inspector of Police NIB CID (Criminal Appeal
No.1056 of 2019) and contended that the accused therein was
convicted for offences u/s 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act and
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine
of Rs.5,000/-. The Supreme Court had reduced the sentence of

¶16

3 of 6 10.APPA.1202.2019.doc

¶17

imprisonment of two years to one year. It is, therefore, submitted
that maximum sentence imposed against applicant was not
warranted.

¶18

4.Learned APP submitted that the applicant was found in
possession of 3 kgs of contraband. The applicant has been convicted
for the aforesaid offences. The offence is of serious nature. Hence
bail may not be granted to the applicant.

¶19

5.The case of prosecution is that on 15th May 2014 on receipt of
secret information trap was arranged and the accused were
apprehended. The accused no.1 was found in possession of 22 kgs of
Ganja which is commercial quantity and the applicant was found in
possession of 3 kgs of Ganja. The contraband allegedly recovered at
the instance of applicant is more than small quantity but less than
commercial quantity. The maximum sentence provided for the
offence u/s 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) is ten years. The minimum is not
prescribed. On perusal of the order framing charge it is apparent
that although two persons were prosecuted for the offence, the
specific charge framed against the applicant is u/s 20(b)(ii)(B) r/w
Section 29 of NDPS Act. The Trial Court has convicted the applicant
for the offence u/s 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act. However, the
applicant has been acquitted for the offence u/s 29 of NDPS Act. It is
pertinent to note that Section 29 relates to punishment for abetment
and criminal conspiracy. Both the accused were acquitted for the
offence u/s 29 of NDPS Act.

¶20

6. The appeal is pending for final disposal and whether maximum sentence awarded by the Trial Court is arbitrary or not would be

¶21

4 of 6 10.APPA.1202.2019.doc

¶22

decided at the time of final disposal of appeal. It is not disputed that
the appellant was allegedly found in possession of non-commercial
quantity of contraband.

¶23

7.The applicant had preferred application for suspension of
sentence which was disposed of vide order dated 14th January 2019.
In the said order it was made clear that the applicant was not heard
on merits and liberty was granted to renew the prayer for grant of
bail after six months. It was also observed that the Court is hearing
appeals of the year 2014 but the accused are in jail for substantial
time and it would not be proper to fix the matter for final hearing. I
have perused the orders placed by learned counsel for applicant in
support of submission that bail was granted pending appeal in
similar circumstances. The order dated 17th April 2013 passed in
Criminal Application NO.294 of 2013 relates to conviction for offence
u/s 8(c) r/w Section 20(b) of NDPS Act. The applicants were on bail
during trial. The sentence was suspended and bail was granted to
the applicants therein. In Criminal Application No.197 of 2012 and
other connected applications, bail was granted pending appeal. The
applicants were on bail during trial. The applicants were convicted
under Section 25(A) and 29 of NDPS Act. They were on bail during
trial. They were sentenced to imprisonment for seven years. The
Court considered the fact that appeals would not come up for
hearing shortly. The order dated 12th October 2018 passed in
Criminal Application No.540 of 2018 relates to accused who was
convicted for offence u/s 8(c) r/w S.20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act
wherein the accused was sentenced to five years. The accused was
on bail during trial. The Court observed that short sentence is
awarded to the accused. He was on bail during trial. Bar of Section

¶24

5 of 6 10.APPA.1202.2019.doc

¶25

37 is not applicable as the seized quantity is non-commercial. Vide
order dated 18th November 2011 applicant in Application No.1617 of
2011 was granted bail pending trial by this Court. The accused was
found in possession of controlled substance. By order dated 9th
March 2012 passed in Criminal Bail Application No.250 of 2012 the
accused was granted bail. The offence was under Section 25A of
NDPS Act. The applicant in Bail Application No.1466 of 2015 was
granted bail by this Court by order dated 23rd February 2016. The
accused was allegedly found with controlled substance and charged
for offence under Section 25A of NDPS Act. In the case of Kallumal
Jaidmal Kukareja @ Kallumama Vs. State of Maharashtra
(2018(2)AIR.Bom.R (Cri).675), this Court reduced sentence of
imprisonment from ten years to two years for the conviction u/s 8(c)
and 20(b)(ii)(B). Learned counsel for applicant also relied upon
several other decisions. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of
R.Kumaravel (supra) reduced the sentence of imprisonment to one
year from two years imposed for conviction u/s 8(c) r/w S.20(b)(ii)
(B) of NDPS Act.

¶26

8.The applicant is in custody for three years and ten months.
The Trial Court has awarded maximum sentence. Considering the
fact that applicant has been convicted for the aforesaid offence and
the fact that he was allegedly found with non-commercial quantity
and since he was on bail during trial, the sentence of imprisonment
can be suspended during pendency of appeal preferred by applicant
challenging the judgment and order of conviction.

¶27

9. Hence, I pass following order :

¶28

6 of 6 10.APPA.1202.2019.doc

¶29

ORDER

¶30

(i)The sentence of imprisonment awarded to the applicant vide
judgment and order dated 20th December 2016 passed by NDPS
Special Judge, Civil Civil and Sessions Court, Greater Bombay in
NDPS Case No.165 of 2014 convicting the applicant for offence u/s
8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act, is hereby suspended during
pendency of Criminal Appeal No.33 of 2017, on executing PR bond
in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one or more sureties in the like
amount;

¶31

(ii)The applicant shall report Anti Narcotic Cell, Ghatkopar,
Mumbai, once in three months on first Saturday of such month till
further orders;

¶32

(iii)The fine amount should be paid, if not paid already.

¶33

10.This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary of
this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or e-mail of a
digitally signed copy of this order.

¶34

(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)

¶35

MST

Shashikant Chandrakant Thorat v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shashikant Chandrakant Thorat v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajinkya Eknath Kale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ajinkya Eknath Kale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Chetlal Mahavir Dangi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pratidnyan @ Gulya Jijing Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shantiprasad Veniprasad Yadav and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pratidnyan @ Gulya Jijing Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra