AJAY NAVINCHANDRA JOSHI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant-orig. accused (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant') has preferred the present appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the judgment and order of conviction dated 07th October 2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 6th Fast Track Court, Rajkot in N. D. P. S. Special Sessions Case No. 2 of 2003, whereby the learned trial Judge has held the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 20 and 31 of the Narcotic, Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default rigorous imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 20 of the Act; and so far as the offence punishable under Section 31 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the appellant is asked to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 50,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The learned trial Judge has also ordered to run both the sentences concurrently.

(2.) THE judgment and order of conviction and sentence under challenge is assailed on various grounds mentioned in paragraph no. 5 of the memo of the appeal and Shri Milind Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has taken me through all these grounds and also through the judgment and order of conviction and sentence under challenge. After reading relevant portion of the evidence recorded during the course of trial and in response to the query raised by the Court, Shri Kulkarni has fairly submitted that at present the appellant is in prison. He has undergone practically the substantive part of imprisonment imposed by the learned trial Judge and the appellant is not pressing the present appeal against the judgment and order of conviction, but his alternative submission on the quantum of punishment imposed by the learned trial Judge needs consideration and this Court may record appropriate verdict on the alternative argument advanced by him.

(3.) IN view of the fact that the appellant is not interested in assailing the legality and propriety of the conviction imposed by the learned trial Judge, now only the sentence imposed by the learned trial Judge shall have to be evaluated keeping in mind the relevant provisions of Section 20 as well as Section 31 of the Act. The amendment made in Section 20 of the Act has come into force with effect from 02nd October 2001. So the case of the prosecution was required to be dealt with under the amended provisions of the said Section 20 and the old Section 20 or any repealed provision had no room to play.