Lalu Vs. State of M.P.

Lalu vs State of M.P.

Disposition Appeal dismissed Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Feb 08, 2005

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/498222

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/498222
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Judge: A.K. Awasthy, J.
Decided On: Feb 08, 2005
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 571/1999
Subject: Narcotics
Disposition: Appeal dismissed

Case Summary

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

- - 6. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the appellant that the appellant is a poor rustic villager and he is Scheduled Caste and also the first offender. It is submitted by the learned Counsel of the appellant that in view of the fact that he is a first offender and poor rustic villager, the sentence of 15 y...

Key legal issue: Narcotics
Outcome / disposition: Appeal dismissed
Acts & sections: Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 8, 21, 42, 50, 52 and 57

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Lalu

Advocate M. Bhatia, Adv.

Respondent

State of M.P.

Advocate M. Soni, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 8, 21, 42, 50, 52 and 57
Reported In: 2005(2)MPHT71; 2005(3)MPLJ50

Excerpt

- - 6. it is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is a poor rustic villager and he is scheduled caste and also the first offender. it is submitted by the learned counsel of the appellant that in view of the fact that he is a first offender and poor rustic villager, the sentence of 15 years is excessive and his sentence in default of payment of fine of 2 years is also disproportionate and as such, it should be reduced......the sample packet alongwith the seized item was sealed. that the accused was arrested and he was taken to the office of the superintendent of the cbn ratlam where the seized packets were deposited. that the sample packet was sent to the alcolied factory, neemuch, from where it was reported that the seized item was the heroin.3. the accused has abjured the guilt and the statement of the prosecution witnesses were denied in his statement under section 313 and he has pleaded the false implication. no witness in defence was examined.4. the learned trial court after examining 7 prosecution witnesses has held that the heroin was found in possession of the accused and the provision of sections 42, 50, 52 and 57 of the ndps act were duly followed and as such, the appellants were convicted and sentenced as stated above.5. the learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged the conviction of the appellant accused under section 8/21 of the ndps act. from the statement of the seizing officer bajranglal (p.w. 5) and the evidence on record it is clear, that the appellant was found in possession of the heroin weighing 1.750 gm and all the statutory provisions of the ndps act were adhered by the prosecution. consequently, the learned counsel for the appellant has rightly not challenged the finding against the appellant holding him guilty under section 8/21 of the ndps act.6. it is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is a poor rustic villager and he is scheduled caste and also the first offender. it is submitted by the learned counsel of the appellant that in view of the fact that he is a first offender and poor rustic villager, the sentence of 15 years is excessive and his sentence in default of payment of fine of 2 years is also disproportionate and as such, it should be reduced. the learned trial court has observed in para 20 of the impugned judgment that the appellant is first offender. appellant is a villager. in the facts and.....

Full Judgment

A.K. Awasthy, J.

1. Appellant/accused has filed the jail appeal against the judgment and order dated 26-12-98 in Special Case No. 8/98 by Special Judge NDPS Act, Ratlam of his conviction and sentence under Section 8/21 Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act (in short 'NDPS Act') for sentence of 15 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine further rigorous imprisonment for the period of 2 years.

2. The prosecution case is that on 14-4-98 at about 9 PM the secret information was received by the Sub-Inspector Bajranglal of CBN and after forwarding the secret information to the higher authority, the Sub-Inspector alongwith the party reached to the Railway Station, Ratlam and the accused was found sitting in the waiting hall and after informing about the secret information, from the bag of the accused the Heroin weighing 1.750 gm was seized vide Ex. P-4 and after extracting the sample from the Heroin the sample packet alongwith the seized item was sealed. That the accused was arrested and he was taken to the office of the Superintendent of the CBN Ratlam where the seized packets were deposited. That the sample packet was sent to the Alcolied Factory, Neemuch, from where it was reported that the seized item was the Heroin.

3. The accused has abjured the guilt and the statement of the prosecution witnesses were denied in his statement under Section 313 and he has pleaded the false implication. No witness in defence was examined.

4. The learned Trial Court after examining 7 prosecution witnesses has held that the Heroin was found in possession of the accused and the provision of Sections 42, 50, 52 and 57 of the NDPS Act were duly followed and as such, the appellants were convicted and sentenced as stated above.

5. The learned Counsel for the appellant has not challenged the conviction of the appellant accused under Section 8/21 of the NDPS Act. From the statement of the Seizing Officer Bajranglal (P.W. 5) and the evidence on record it is clear, that the appellant was found in possession of the Heroin weighing 1.750 gm and all the statutory provisions of the NDPS Act were adhered by the prosecution. Consequently, the learned Counsel for the appellant has rightly not challenged the finding against the appellant holding him guilty under Section 8/21 of the NDPS Act.

6. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the appellant that the appellant is a poor rustic villager and he is Scheduled Caste and also the first offender. It is submitted by the learned Counsel of the appellant that in view of the fact that he is a first offender and poor rustic villager, the sentence of 15 years is excessive and his sentence in default of payment of fine of 2 years is also disproportionate and as such, it should be reduced. The learned Trial Court has observed in Para 20 of the impugned judgment that the appellant is first offender. Appellant is a villager. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence of 15 years appears to be excessive and the direction to undergo the rigorous imprisonment for 2 years in default of payment of fine is also disproportionate. Consequently, the sentence of 15 years is reduced to only 10 years and it is directed that in default of the payment of fine, the appellant accused will undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 6 months only.

7. The conviction under Section 8/21 is maintained. Jail sentence of 15 years is reduced to only 10 years. The sentence of 2 years in default of payment of fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- is also reduced from 2 years to only 6 months.

8. With the aforesaid modification, the appeal is hereby rejected.

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2005 Same Parties Lalu vs State of M.P. Same Subject Narcotics Same Judge A.K. Awasthy, J. Acts & Sections Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sectio...

Narcotics