RAJESHKUMAR SURAJPAL BATHAM Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant appeal has been preferred by the appellants under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and under Section 36b of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,1985 ( for short "the N. D. P. S. Act")against the judgment and order delivered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,fast Track Court No. 2, Ahmedabad on 12. 4. 2006 in Sessions Case No. 115 of 2004 whereby all the three appellants came to be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 8 (c)and 20 (b) read with Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,1985. Each of the appellant, being accused of the said Sessions Case, came to be convicted for the rigorous imprisonment of 10 years and fine of Rs. 100,000/- each and, in default, to undergo imprisonment of 3 years.

(2.) AS per the brief facts of the case, all the appellants, in conspiracy and abetting each other, were arrested and apprehended on 27th February, 2004 at 11:15 hrs. near Kankaria Lake at Ahmedabad city. Raid was conducted by Mr. R. C. Pathak, Police Inspector, N. D. P. S. Cell, CID (Crime), State of Gujarat, Gandhinagar on prior information and during raid appellant No. 1 was found in possession of 270 grams of Charas, appellant No. 2 was found in possession of 430 grams of Charas and appellant No. 3 was found in possession of 130 grams of Charas for selling and transporting. After investigation, chargesheet was filed and after full-fledged trial, learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced each of the appellant as above.

(3.) IN the present Appeal,learned advocate Mr R. M. Agrawal for the appellants restricted his submissions to the quantum of the sentence and the Appeal is not pressed on merits. Pointing out particular circumstances of each of the appellant, learned advocate further submitted that now under the scheme of NDPS Act,the sentencing policy is devised in a manner to meet with the quantity of the contraband seized from concerned accused. It is submitted that for Charas, small quantity is 100 grams and sentence provided for such possession would be only 6 months. While, in this case, the contraband Charas found in possession of each of the appellant is little higher than the small quantity and much less than the commercial quantity. In these circumstances, it is submitted that sentence awarded to each of the accused be reduced having regard to the above mentioned facts. It is submitted that each of the appellant has undergone, almost 5 years of imprisonment as each of the appellant was arrested on 27. 2. 2004 and thereafter has not been released on bail.