SHARMA, J. - (1.) SINCE all these four appeals arise out of one and the same judgment dated April 2, 2002 of the learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases Pratapgarh rendered in Sessions Cases No. 146/99 (106/97), 4/99 (72/96), 225/99 and 202/99 and 202/99 (40/99), therefore the same are taken up together for disposal.
(2.) VIDE impugned judgment the accused Shanti Lal was convicted and sentenced under section 8/18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short `ndps Act') to undergo rigorous imprisonment for twenty years and fine of Rs. two lacs in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. While other accused Kalu Lal @ Kaluram, Shambhu Lal and Gopal Lal were acquitted of the charges leveled against them. The prosecution story is woven like this. The Deputy Superintendent of Police Chhoti Sadri on the basis of secret information about the opium in the room situated in the field of Kalu Ram Anjana conducted Nakabandi at the house and filed of Kalu Ram along with Tehisildar and Naib Tehsildar. At 7. 00 AM a motor cycle being No. RJ-14/1360 driven by Kalu Ram and his brother Gopal Lal as Pillion was seen. The Tehsildar and Naib Tehsildar tried to stop them but then fled away leaving behind the motor cycle. On checking th dicky of motorcycle a ragzine packet continuing 7kg. Opium was found, out of which samples were taken. When the party reached at the well of Kalu Ram, the door was opened by Shanti Lal. On search three packets containing 10. 100kg. , 10. 300 kg. and 11. 700 kg. opium were found. Shantilal told that this opium belonged to Kalu Ram and them same was kept by sons of Kalu Ram. Samples were taken out of the recovered opium. Necessary memos were drawn and after usual investigation charges sheet was filed. Charge under Sections 8/18 and 8/29 NDPS Act was framed against the accused persons, who denied the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as seventeen witnesses. The accused in their explanation under Section 313 Cr. P. C. claimed innocence and accused Shanti lal stated that he is handicapped and resided in other village as such he was arrested on the next day. The accused Gopal stated that he resided separately with his brother Kalu Ram. Accused kalu Ram stated that his motor cycle was not in working condition for last many days and no opium was recovered from his field. Shambhu Lal stated that he resided in other village and has no concern with the accused persons. I have reflected over the rival submissions and scanned the material on record. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant Shanti Lal initially made attempt to assail the impugned judgment on the merit but subsequently canvassed that imposition of sentence of 20 years on appellant Shanti Lal is not justified in view of the fact that he is handicapped person. According to clause (b) of Section 18 of the NDPS Act, where the contravention involves commercial quantity, the accused may by punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to twenty years, and shall also be liable to find which shall not be less than one lakh rupees which may extend to two lakh rupees. It is therefore to be seen whether the imposition of punishment of twenty years on the appellant is excessive in the facts and circumstance of the case. A bare look at the material on record reveals that in the explanation under Section 313 Cr. P. C. , appellant Shanti Lal stated that he is handicapped person and this fact has not been controverted by the prosecution. Learned trial judge did not narrate the reasons in the impugned judgment as to why maximum punishment has been imposed on the appellant. In my opinion imposing maximum punishment on the appellant, who is a handicapped person, is highly unjustified. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the ends of justice would be met in sentencing the appellant Shanti Lal to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,00,000/-; in default, to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years.
(3.) IN so far the three appeals preferred by the State of Rajasthan are concerned, I find no material to connect the co- accused Kalu Lal, Shambhu Lal and Gopal Lal with the crime. There is no satisfactory evidence on record that connects them with the guilt and they have rightly been acquitted of the charge under Section 8/18 of the NDPS Act. For these reasons, I partly allow the appeal of Shati Lal and instead of sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 20 years, I impose on him sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and a fine of Rs. 2 lacs, in default he would further suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years. The State appeals bearing Nos. 611/2002, 610/2002 and 394/2003 stand dismissed. Impugned judgment of the learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Pratapgarh stands modified as indicated hereinabove. .;