Partly allowed

Lakhmu Markam v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC6 Mar 2024CRA/427/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeals against conviction and sentence under Section 20(b)(2)(b) of the NDPS Act for transporting 13.300 kg ganja. The High Court affirmed the conviction but, considering the appellants' age, time already undergone and prolonged trial, reduced the jail sentence to the period already undergone; appeals partly allowed.

What did the court decide?

Conviction affirmed; jail sentence reduced to period already undergone; fine and default sentence upheld; Chandro Netam directed to be released forthwith if not required in another case.

Lakhmu Markam Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Narcotics (NDPS) | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

CRA No. 427 of 2018

¶5

Lakhmu Markam S/o Devsingh Markam Aged About 32 Years R/o Ravnaguda, Police Chowki Kundai, P. S. Raigarha, Distt. Navrangpur Orrissa, District : Navranpur, Odisha

¶6

---- Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station City Kotwali, Dhamtari, Distt. Dhamtari Chhattisgarh,

¶9

---- Respondent

¶10

CRA No. 330 of 2019

¶11

Chandro Netam S/o Sukhram Netam Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Hirri Nayapara, Outpost- Kundai, Thana-Raygada, DistrictNavrangpur, Odisha., District : Nabarangapur *, Orissa

¶12

---- Petitioner

¶13

Versus

¶14

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police StationCity Kotwali Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

¶15

---- Respondent

¶16

For Appellant : Mr. Vikas Pradhan, Advocate For State/Resp. : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Panel Lawyer

¶17

Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board

¶18

07/03/2024

¶19

Since the facts and dispute in question arising out of a common order passed by the Learned Trial Court, both the appeals are being disposed of by this common order.

¶20

¶21

This criminal appeal have been filed under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. by the appellants against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.02.2018 passed by the Special Judge (NDPS Act) Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No. 190/2016, whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as follows:-

¶22

Convicted under Sections	Sentenced to
20 (b)(2)(b) of the NDPS Act	R.I. for 8 years and fine of Rs. 60,000/- in default of payment of fine 2 year Additional R.I., each appellant.

¶23

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 02.07.2017 while patrolling, an information was received that the appellants were traveling in motorcycle bearing registration No. CG/04/CH/2374 having Ganja and they are transporting the same from Nagri to Dhamtari. Accordingly Police party stopped the said vehicle and thereafter seized 13.300 Kg Ganja from the joint possession of the appellants. Thereafter crime No. 232/2017 was registered against the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 20 (b)(2)(b) of the NDPS Act. The charge-sheet was filed before the competent Court against the appellants.

¶24

The Special Judge (NDPS Act) Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari (C.G.), after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record vide judgment dated 06.02.2018, convicted the appellants for the offence punishable underSection 20 (b)(2)(b) of the NDPS Act and sentenced him as mentioned in opening paragraph of this order.

¶25

¶26

The appellant- Chandro Netam was in jail from 03.07.2017 to 05.02.2018 and he is still in jail from the date of impugned judgment i.e. 06.02.2018. The appellant- Lakhmu Markam was in jail from 03.07.2017 to 05.02.2018 and from the impugned judgment i.e. 06.02.2018 till the bail was granted to him i.e. 17.02.2019.

¶27

Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the alleged seized Ganja was not recovered from the joint possession of the appellants. The judgment of the trial Court is bad in law as well as on facts. The learned trial Court ought not to have convicted and sentenced the appellants and ought to have given the benefit of doubt since the evidence submitted by the prosecution is very shaky and unbelievable. The Court below failed to appreciate the evidence and documents available on record. Alternatively, he submits that the trial Court has awarded the sentence of R.I. for 8 years and fine of Rs. 60,000/- in default of payment of fine 2 year Additional R.I., each appellant.

¶28

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that they do not want to press this appeal on merits and confine his argument to the sentence part thereof only. Further he submits that the appellant - Lakhmu Markam at present is aged about 40 years and appellantChandro Netam at present is aged about 30 years and they are facing criminal trial since 2017 and the appellant Lakhmu Markan has already undergone 1½ years of jail sentence and appellant – Chandro Netam has already undergone 6 years and 6 months awarded by the trial Court in Special Criminal Case No. 190/2017 and bail was granted to them by this Court on 08.02.2019 and

¶29

¶30

12.03.2019, however, the appellant- Chandro Netam could not furnish bail bond therefore he is still in jail. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the appellants may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. He placed his reliance upon the decisions of the Coordinate Bench of this High Court in the matters of Ajay Kumar Sarthi V. State of Chhattisgarh in CRA No. 243 of 2022, Pritam Patel Vs. State of Chhattisgarh in CRA No. 903 of 2015 and Yogendra Singh Markam Vs. State of Chhattisgarh in CRA No. 1760 of 2022, the Co-ordinate Bench has reduced the sentence to the period already undergone, and therefore, similar relief may be extended to the appellants herein as well.

¶31

Mr. Vivek Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondent/State, submits that the Court below has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant, in which no interference is called for.

¶32

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection.

¶33

From perusal of the records, it transpires that on 02.07.2017 while patrolling, an information was received that the appellants were traveling in motorcycle bearing registration No. CG/04/CH/2374 having Ganja and they are transporting the same from Nagri to Dhamtari. Accordingly Police party stopped the said vehicle and thereafter seized 13.300 Kg Ganja from the joint possession of the appellants. The trial Court after considering the material available on record and evidence of the prosecution witnesses, convicted the

¶34

¶35

appellants for the offence under Section 20 (b)(2)(b) of the NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo RI for 8 years and fine of Rs. 60,000/each. Considering the material available on record and the evidence adduced by the prosecution, I am of the view that the trial Court did not commit any illegality or infirmity in the findings recorded by trial Court as regards conviction of the appellants under Sections 20 (b) (2)(b) of the NDPS Act.

¶36

Now considering the question of sentence. As the appellants are facing criminal trial since 2017 and thereafter more than 7 years has been elapsed, considering the age of the appellants at present and further considering the quantity of contraband seized from joint possession of appellants i.e. 13.300 KG Ganja, which is intermediate quantity, Lakhmu Markam has already undergone 1½ year of jail sentence and appellant – Chandro Netam has already undergone 6 years and 6 months of jail sentence awarded by the trial Court in Session Trial No. 190/2017 and bail was also not granted to them by this Court on 08.02.2019 & 12.03.2019 respectively, there would be no useful purpose to remain the appellants in jail as they have already suffered undergone sentence and also agony of criminal trial for so many years, that meets the ends of justice. So this Court finds it appropriate to reduce the sentence from RI for 8 years under Section 20 (b)II(b) of N.D.P.S Act 1985 to the period already undergone by the appellants of jail sentence. If the fine amount is not deposited by the appellants within the stipulated time, they shall further undergo as has been ordered by the learned Special Judge N.D.P.S. Act, Dhamtari, District

¶37

¶38

Dhamtari (C.G.). Ordered accordingly.

¶39

Consequently, both the appeals are partly allowed. Conviction of the appellants under the aforementioned section is affirmed and they are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. The fine amount imposed by the trial Court is hereby affirmed and shall remain intact.

¶40

It is reported that the appellant – Chandro Netam is in jail. He be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.

¶41

Let a copy of this order and the original records be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

(Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge

¶44

Shoaib

Lakhmu Markam v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakhmu Markam v. State of Chhattisgarh

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

Intkhaab Vs Shivprasad

Dinesh Kumar Verma Vs Smt. Sangeeta Agarwal @ Sangeeta Sasika

Dr. Kamal Singh Saite Vs Shri Virendra Padhi

Smt. Kamla Vs Vikas

Rahul Gandhi Vs Sanjay Ramchandani

Chandro Netam Vs State of Chhattisgarh