TRILOKCHAND Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT herein stands convicted under section 8/21, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 by Additional Sessions Judge, Bhanpura, District Mandsaur (M.P.) vide his judgment and order passed on 31.8.2000 in Special Case No. 8/94.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the prosecution's case is that on 19.5.1993 at 9.00 a.m. Station House Officer of Police Station, Bhanpura, R.C. Bhakar (PW 8) got secret information that owner of flour mill, named Trilok, is keeping in his possession and selling smack at his flour mill and Raghu is selling smack at his shop. On receiving the information, R.C. Bhakar (PW 8) decided to make a search at the flour mill of Trilok and at the hotel. R.C. Bhakar (PW 8) entered the information in Roznamcha and he also apprised Sub-Divisional Officer (Police), Garoth, of the information received. Thereafter, R.C. Bhakar (PW 8) reached with search party at the flour mill of Trilok where Trilok, i.e., the appellant was found standing on the door of his shop. On being asked, he gave his identity as Trilok. R.C. Bhakar told the appellant that he had information that he (appellant) is engaged in selling smack and he is keeping smack in his possession. Therefore, he wants to make a search. After obtaining the consent of appellant, R.C. Bhakar (PW 8) made search of his shop, i.e., flour mill and smack kept in a small plastic bag was recovered from the capacitor. The substance recovered was checked and examined and found to be smack.

(3.) TRIAL Court framed charge under section 8/21 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as Act). Charge against Arun Kumar, i.e., brother of appellant was quashed by this Court in Criminal Revision No. 155/1994 vide order dated 11.2.1998. Therefore, appellant alone was tried for the offence punishable under section 8/21 of NDPS Act and after trial, he was convicted under the aforesaid section and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. One lakh; in default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for five years. Hence, this appeal. Learned counsel for appellant did not challenge the finding of conviction of appellant. His only contention is that in view of the amended provisions, the sentence awarded to appellant be reduced to the term already undergone* by him. Learned counsel for State has refuted the contention. His submission is that at the time of commission of the offence and awarding the sentence, rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rupees one lakh was the minimum sentence, which could be inflicted under section 8/21 of NDPS Act. Hence, no question of reducing the sentence arises.