Partly allowed

Kaka @ Amarjeet Singh v. State

Rajasthan HC14 Mar 2024CRLA/65/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Special Judge convicted the appellant under NDPS Act for possession of poppy husk with a four-year sentence. The High Court held that reducing the bail term to the full sentence was justified due to the prolonged trial. Appeal allowed in part; sentence reduced to time served; fine maintained.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to period already undergone; fine maintained; three months time granted to deposit fine; appeal dismissed for one month's SI; bail bonds discharged.

Kaka @ Amarjeet Singh Vs State — Narcotics (NDPS) | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:12138]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 65/2009

¶4

Kaka @ Amarjeet Singh S/o Baltej Singh, B/c Jatsikh, R/o Govind Basti Freedkot, Now residing at Chak 3BRW Bairwala Klan Tehsil Tibbi, District Hanumangarh (presently lodged in District Jail Hanumangarh)

----Appellant

Versus

State of Rajasthan

----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. R.S. Gill For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

¶11

Order

¶12

14/03/2024

¶13

Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 06.01.2009 passed by learned Special Judge NDPS Cases Hanumangarh, in Sessions Case No.20/2003 by which the learned Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as under :-

¶14

Offence	Sentence	Fine & default sentence
Sec. 8/15(B)	4 Years’ R.I.	Rs.40,000/- and in default of
of NDPS Act		payment of fine, one year’s R.I.

¶15

Brief facts of the case are that on 18.10.2003 at about 4.05 P.M. Bala Ram, Station House Officer, P.S. Tibbi, Hanumangarh alongwith other Police Officials while patrolling reached at Bhakhara Canal small bridge, wherein, the Police Party saw a person with bag. He tried to fled upon seeing the Police personnel. The Police apprehended apprehended him and a search was made.

[2024:RJ-JD:12138]

[CRLA-65/2009]

(2 of 4)

Upon which 22 Kgs. Of Poppy husk was recovered. Two samples of 250 Grams each were collected and the accused appellant was arrested.

¶20

The police registered the FIR for offence under Section 8/15 NDPS Act and started investigation. After investigation, the police filed challan against the present appellant. Thereafter, the charge for offence under Section 8/15 of NDPS Act was framed by the trial court against the appellant, who denied the charges and claimed trial.

¶21

During the course of trial, the prosecution examined twelve witnesses and also exhibited some documents. Thereafter, statement of appellant under section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded.

¶22

Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 06.01.2009 convicted and sentenced the appellant for offence under Section 8/15 of NDPS Act as mentioned earlier.

¶23

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 2003 and the appellant has so far suffered a sentence of about three months, out of total sentence of four years’ R.I., 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.) (Raj.) 1914,

[2024:RJ-JD:12138]

[CRLA-65/2009]

(3 of 4)

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.)

¶28

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.

¶29

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.

¶30

Undisputedly, the incident relates back to the year 2003 and the appellant has so far undergone a period of three months’ 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 8/15 NDPS Act is reduced to the period already undergone by him while maintaining the fine amount as imposed by the trial court.

¶31

Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining the appellant’s conviction and sentence for offence under Section 8/15 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

¶32

(4 of 4) [CRLA-65/2009]

¶33

[2024:RJ-JD:12138]

¶34

amount before the trial court. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo one months’ SI. The appellant is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged.

¶35

The record of the trial court be sent back forthwith.

¶36

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J

¶37

199-Ishan/-

Kaka @ Amarjeet Singh v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kaka @ Amarjeet Singh v. State

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

Ritesh Vs State of Rajasthan

Piyush Vs State of Rajasthan

Samsudeen @ Samsu Khan Son of Shri Mohammad Hasan Vs State of Rajasthan

Dewa Ram and Anr. Vs State

Lal Chand Vs State

Suresh Singh Vs State of Rajasthan