Decided on December 03,2020

Issak Nabab Shah Appellant


M.R.SHAH, J. - (1.)Having heard the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant and the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the State, the delay caused in preferring the appeal is condoned. 1a. Leave granted.
(2.)Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 16.03.2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Criminal Appeal No. 357 of 2015, by which the High Court has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the appellant - original accused and has confirmed the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kopargaon, convicting the appellant - original accused for the offences punishable under Section 8(c) and 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the 'NDPS Act') and sentencing him to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000- (Rupees one lakh), the original accused no. 1 has preferred the present appeal.
2.1 At the outset, it is required to be noted that by order dated 13.10.2020 notice limited to the quantum of sentence has been issued by this Court.

(3.)Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that the appellant was found to be in possession of 6.300 kilogram of Ganja - Narcotic Substance, which is above the small quantity and below commercial quantity. It is submitted that under the NDPS Act, 20 kilogram of Ganja is considered to be commercial quantity and the punishment for commercial quantity is 10 years rigorous imprisonment and above. It is submitted that however for the quantity between small quantity and commercial quantity, the punishment is up to 10 years rigorous imprisonment.
3.1 It is submitted that the appellant has already undergone six years rigorous imprisonment out of ten years rigorous imprisonment imposed by the learned trial court and confirmed by the High Court. Therefore, it is prayed to modify the sentence imposed by the learned trial Court, confirmed by the High Court, to the sentence already undergone, considering the fact that at the relevant time the appellant was aged 24-25 years of age and he has learned a lesson and that there was no antecedents and is married and having children and the family depend upon him.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.