The High Court reduced the appellant's mandatory sentence to the period already undergone while maintaining the fine, citing the length of incarceration and protracted trial. The appeal was partly allowed.
Sentence reduced to period already undergone; fine maintained with three months to deposit; bail bonds discharged.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2023:RJ-JD:43040]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 506/2013
Abdul Hakim @ Bhuriya S/o Ayub Khan Pathan, B/c Muslim, R/o Kanwa Khera, Kachhi Basti, Bhilwara Kotwali Police Station, District Bhilwara.
(Lodged in District Jail, Bhilwara) ----Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
| For Appellant(s) | : Mr. Anil Kaviraj through VC |
|---|---|
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, PP with |
| Mr. CP Marwan |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
11/12/2023
Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 09.04.2013 passed by learned Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases, Bhilwara in Sessions Case No.41/2006 by which the learned Judge convicted the appellant for offence under Section 8/21(B) of NDPS Act and sentenced him to undergo four years’ R.I. alongwith a fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo one year’s R.I.
Brief facts of the case are that on 28.09.2006, SHO, Police Station Kotwali, Bhilwara alongwith patrolling team laid a blockade on the Dadidham—Sagasji road. At about 3:15 PM, they saw a person coming on a motorcycle, who tried to flee on seeing the police party. The Police team followed the motorcycle and caught
[2023:RJ-JD:43040]
[CRLA-506/2013]
(2 of 4)
hold of the person. On inquiry, he disclosed his name as Abdul Hakim @ Bhuriya, who is the appellant in this case. Upon search, 25 gms 240 mg smack was recovered from the appellant without any valid licence and permit.
The police registered the FIR for offence under Section 8/21 NDPS Act and started investigation. After investigation, the police filed challan against the present appellant. Thereafter, the charge for offence under Section 8/21(B) of NDPS Act was framed by the trial court against the appellant, who denied the charges and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined eleven witnesses and various documents were also exhibited. Thereafter, statement of appellant under section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded. No witness was examined on the defence side.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 09.04.2013 convicted and sentenced the appellant for offence under Section 8/21(B) of NDPS Act as mentioned earlier.
At the threshold, learned counsel for the appellant does not challenge the finding of conviction but it is submitted that since the occurrence relates back to year 2006 and the appellant has so far suffered a sentence of three years, six months & twenty four days, out of total sentence of four years, therefore, it is prayed that the substantive sentence awarded to the appellant for the aforesaid offence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant relied upon judgment of this Court in the case of Mohammad Ali v. State of Rajasthan reported in 2013(4) CJ(Cri.)
[2023:RJ-JD:43040]
[CRLA-506/2013]
(3 of 4)
(Raj.) 1914, Niyamat Ali Nemu v. State of Rajasthan reported in 2013(4) CJ(Cri.) (Raj.) 1915, Sher Singh vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2016(1) WLN 156 (Raj.)
On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. The learned PP submitted that there is neither any occasion to interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused appellant nor any compassion or sympathy is called for in the said case.
I have perused the evidence of the prosecution as well as defence and the judgment passed by the trial court regarding conviction of the accused-appellant.
Undisputedly, the incident relates back to the year 2006 and the appellant has so far undergone a period of three years, six months & twenty four days’ incarceration out of the total sentence of four years’ R.I. so also suffered the mental agony and trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking to the over-all circumstances and the fact that the appellant has remained behind the bars for considerable time, it will be just and proper if the sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under Section 8/21(B) NDPS Act is reduced to the period already undergone by him while maintaining the fine amount as imposed by the trial court.
Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining the appellant’s conviction and sentence for offence under Section 8/21(B) NDPS Act, the sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone, however the amount of fine is hereby maintained. Three months’ time is granted to deposit the fine amount before the trial court. In default of payment of fine, the
[2023:RJ-JD:43040]
[CRLA-506/2013]
(4 of 4)
appellant shall undergo three months’ RI. The appellant is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged.
The record of the trial court be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
229-MS/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant's sentence should be reduced to the period already undergone given the delay in trial.
Whether the fine imposed on the appellant should be maintained or remitted.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Abdul Hakim @ Bhuriya
State of Rajasthan
Manoj Kumar Garg
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
