- (1.) Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 23.09.2011 passed by learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No. 24/2007 by which the learned Judge convicted the appellant for offence under Section 8/15 NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo two and half years R.I. alongwith fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo three months' R.I.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that on 18.04.2007, Sh. Gajendra Singh, SHO PS Bhadra and other police official were on patrolling and reached at Rajgarh road where one person coming on motorcycle who seeing to police tried to turn the motorcycle, who was apprehended and identified as accused Mohammad Imam and was searched and recovered 4 KG poppy husk in packets of 500 gram each in his bag tied up on motorcycle and two samples of 200-200 grams were taken and rest of poppy husk sealed in other bags and accused-appellant was arrested. Thereafter the police registered a case against the accused- appellant being FIR No.127/2007 for offence under Sections 8/15 of NDPS Act and started investigation. After completion of investigation, the police filed challan against the present appellant for offence under Sections 8/15 of NDPS Act. Thereafter, the charges were framed against the appellant. He denied the charges and claimed trial. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined 8 witnesses and various documents were also exhibited. Thereafter, statement of appellant under section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 23.09.2011 convicted and sentenced the appellant for offence under Section 8/15 NDPS Act as mentioned earlier.
(3.) At the threshold, learned counsel for the appellant does not challenge the finding of conviction but it is submitted that since the occurrence relates back to year 2007 and in the present case 4 kg Poppy husk was recovered from the appellant which is below commercial quantity and further the appellant has so far suffered a sentence of more than three and half months out of total sentence of two and half years, therefore, it is prayed that the substantive sentence awarded to the appellant for the aforesaid offence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant relied upon judgment of this Court in the case of Mohammad Ali v. State of Rajasthan reported in 2013(4) CJ(Cri.) (Raj.) 1914, Niyamat Ali Nemu v. State of Rajasthan reported in 2013(4) CJ(Cri.) (Raj.) 1915, Sher Singh vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2016(1) WLN 156 (Raj.).;