Rajneesh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Rajneesh vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Jun 25, 2013

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1049923

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1049923
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On: Jun 25, 2013
Subject: Contempt of Court

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Contempt of Court

Key legal issue: Contempt of Court

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Rajneesh

Advocate Shri. Vikas Sharma

Respondent

The State of Madhya Pradesh

Excerpt

.....rs.5,000/-. appellant has been found to be in possession of 6 grams smack/heroin, contracted substance, which was seized from him. having heard rival contention and on going through the records and taking note of statement of pw-1, the prosecution witness, who has seized the material, namely dwarka prasad police constable, the witness to the panchnama prpared p.w.-2 jagdish sahu, p.w.3 gopal rajput and material available on record no case is made out for acquittal of appellant. however, the fact that have come on record indicates that the quantity of psychotropic substance seized is less than 6 grams.as is evident from exhibit p-25 fsl report and this is firs.offence by the appellant. that apart the appellant has been in custody for more than 18 months till date and fine amount has been deposited. taking note of all these circumstances and further the fact that the appellant is about 60 years of age as on date, interest of justice would be met in case conviction is upheld and the sentence reduced to jail sentence already undergone by appellant, as he is already being in jail for morethan 18 months and evenafter suspension of sentence by this court on 11.5.2007, he could not be released on bail as he did not furnish security and was only released after 21.3.2008. 2 taking note of all these circumstances, this appeal is allowed in part, even though conviction of sentence is upheld, jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. as the appellant is already on bail, his bail bonds be discharged and he be let free, if not required in any other case. with the aforesaid modification to the order passed by the learned court below the appeal is allowed in part. certified copy as per rules. (rajendra menon) judge ss/-

Full Judgment

Rajnees versus State of M.P.Criminal Appeal No.414 ”

25. 06.2013.

Shri Vikas Sharma, learned counsel for appellant.

Shri Amit Pandey, learned Panel Lawyer for the State.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 8/21 of NDPS Act and has been sentenced to undergo R.I.For 2 years with fine of Rs.5,000/-.

Appellant has been found to be in possession of 6 grams smack/heroin, contracted substance, which was seized from him.

Having heard rival contention and on going through the records and taking note of statement of PW-1, the prosecution witness, who has seized the material, namely Dwarka Prasad Police Constable, the witness to the Panchnama prpared P.W.-2 Jagdish Sahu, P.W.3 Gopal Rajput and material available on record no case is made out for acquittal of appellant.

However, the fact that have come on record indicates that the quantity of psychotropic substance seized is less than 6 graMs.as is evident from Exhibit P-25 FSL report and this is fiRs.offence by the appellant.

That apart the appellant has been in custody for more than 18 months till date and fine amount has been deposited.

Taking note of all these circumstances and further the fact that the appellant is about 60 years of age as on date, interest of justice would be met in case conviction is upheld and the sentence reduced to jail sentence already undergone by appellant, as he is already being in jail for morethan 18 months and evenafter suspension of sentence by this Court on 11.5.2007, he could not be released on bail as he did not furnish security and was only released after 21.3.2008.

2 Taking note of all these circumstances, this appeal is allowed in part, even though conviction of sentence is upheld, jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone.

As the appellant is already on bail, his bail bonds be discharged and he be let free, if not required in any other case.

With the aforesaid modification to the order passed by the learned court below the appeal is allowed in part.

Certified copy as per rules.

(RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE ss/-

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2013 Same Parties Rajneesh vs The State of Madhya Pradesh Same Subject Contempt of Court