HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE (DIVISION BENCH : HON. Mr. JUSTICE S.K.SETH AND Mr. JUSTICE M.C.GARG) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 338 of 2004 Naresh S/o Poonamchand Kethwas Age: 21 years, R/o: S-57, Railway Colony, Mhow (M.P.) ......Appellant Vs. Union of India through Central Bureau of Narcotics Office at Indore (M.P.) .....Respondent JUDGMENT (21 st November 2011) Per Seth, J (Oral):- The challenge in this appeal is confined to the sentence alone, awarded by the Special Judge, Indore, in Special S.T. No. 9 of 2002. By the impugned judgment, learned trial Judge found the appellant guilty of an offence punishable under Section 8/18(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short “the Act”) and sentenced him to undergo eleven years' of R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- with default stipulation. Brief facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are as under:- 1. On 8.3.2002 secret information was received by the Sub Inspector Girvarpuri (P.W.-4) of the Central Bureau of Narcotics, Indore that the appellant, a resident of Mhow was likely to carry illegally opium for sale. The information 1 was duly reduced in writing and a Panchanama was prepared and submitted to the Superintendent J.C.Shrivastava (P.W.-5). The raiding party intercepted appellant at Rau by-pass and search was carried out. The search reveals that appellant was carrying with him 2 kg 900 grams of opium illegally without any valid permit; licence or document. He was arrested. After drawing representative sample, remaining contraband article was seized and sealed in accordance with law for safe custody. After getting the positive report from the Chemical Examiner, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant. Appellant denied the charges; therefore, he was committed to face the trial. 2. Considering the prosecution evidence, learned trial Judge found appellant guilty of an offence punishable under Section 8/18(b) of the Act. So far as charges under Section 18(b)/29 and 27A of the Act are concerned, the Court below found that none of the charges were proved therefore, appellant was acquitted of those charges. 3. The only question raised in this appeal is with regard to the quantum of sentence. The requirement of law is that a person found guilty of an offence punishable under Section 8/18(b), the minimum jail sentence, which is required to be awarded is 10 years' R.I. with a fine amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-. So far as minimum sentence is concerned, no discretion is left with the Court by the Legislature. No-doubt the Section itself also provides that the jail sentence could be anywhere between 10 to 20 years, but after 2 careful reading the entire judgment and scrutiny of evidence available, we find nothing in record to show what persuaded learned trial Court to impose R.I. for Eleven years’ instead of minimum 10 years’ R.I. There is nothing to show on what reasoning learned Trial Judge has awarded sentence of 11 years R.I. to the appellant. The case of the appellant before the trial Court was that it was his first offence and he was acting only as a carrier, whereas the king-pin was Sattar Khan, who is acquitted by the trial Judge in the same judgment. In view of the aforesaid, we think that instead of 11 years' of R.I., the minimum jail sentence of 10 years' R.I. would meet the ends of justice, therefore, we partially allow this appeal and direct that instead of 11 years' R.I., the jail sentence awarded to appellant stands modified to 10 years' R.I. So far as the amount of fine and the default sentence are concerned, we do not find anything to interfere with it. 4. In view of the aforesaid, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent herein above and the substantial jail sentence awarded to the appellant from 11 years' R.I. is reduced to the minimum jail sentence to 10 years' R.I. while maintaining the fine and default sentence. Appeal stands disposed of. ( S.K.SETH.) ( M.C.GARG ) JUDGE. JUDGE. BDJ 3