SHANKAR LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Accused-Appellant Shankar Lal S/o. Bahadur Singh has preferred this jail appeal through the Superintendent, Central Jail, Kota, challenging the order of his conviction dated 5th of November, 2001 passed by the Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Cases), Jhalawar, in Sessions Case No. 33/2001, whereby he was convicted under Section 8/21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'The NDPS Act') and sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one year's additional rigorous imprisonment. It is relevant to mention that the appellant had also preferred appeal challenging his conviction and sentence awarded under the same impugned order dated 5th of November, 2001, through Shri N.A. Naqvi, Advocate, which was listed before this Court on 23rd of January, 2002. However, in view of the fact that the appellant had already preferred jail appeal and the appeal filed by Shri N.A. Naqvi was barred by limitation, the learned counsel for the appellant made a prayer to withdraw the appeal and contended that he may be allowed to argue the case on behalf of the appellant in jail appeal itself. The prayer of Shri N.A. Naqvi was allowed and the appeal filed by him was dismissed as withdrawn by this court on 23.1.2002, with liberty to him to represent the case of the appellant in the jail appeal.

(2.) A charge-sheet in the present case was filed against the appellant under Section 8/21 of the NDPS Act by the S.H.O., Police Station-Kotwali, Jhalawar in respect of the occurrence dated 23rd of March, 2001. A search of the appellant was conducted and contraband smack was found from his custody weighing 1 gram and 750 milligram, with packing material, the net weight of which was 1 gram and 500 milligram.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant, in view of the overwhelming prosecution evidence regarding recovery of contraband from the appellant, did not press the appeal on merits and contended that, in view of lesser quantity of contraband recovered in the case, the maximum sentence, which could have been awarded against the appellant, was only six months whereas he has already remained in jail for five-years nine-months and twenty-five-days, therefore, he should be released forthwith.