1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. ORDER Hazari Nath Vs. State of Rajasthan SB CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1194/2003. Under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. DATE OF ORDER: 12th January, 2009. PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P. PATHAK Mr. Kailash Nath Taylor for the appellant. Mrs.Sadhna Bhatt PP for the State. BY THE COURT: This criminal appeal under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as been filed against the judgment dated 30th June, 2003 passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases, Gangapurcity in Sessions Case No.10/2003 for the offence under section 8/15 of the NDPS Act whereby the accused has been convicted and sentenced for seven years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of which to further undergo 18 months rigorous imprisonment. Briefly stated the facts for the disposal of this case are that a complaint was received by the Excise Inspector Shri Madan Lal on 30.5.2002 regarding country made liquor. In pursuance of the information received, the Excise Inspector along with members of the raiding party left for the place to catch hold the person regarding whom information was received. On the way he found a 2 person carrying a bag on his shoulder. He was stopped by the raiding party. The accused disclosed his name as Hazari Nath son of Biram Nath. In the presence of two independent witnesses, namely; PW-2 Yogesh Kumar and PW-3 Rakesh Kumar, search was conducted. From the bag recovered from the accused, 10 Kg. of poppy straw was found. The accused was asked as to whether he was having any valid license to keep the contraband material with him to which he denied. Sample was taken and subsequently sent to the FSL. The statements of independent witnesses were recorded. Information was also sent to the superior officers as per the provisions of Section 57 of the Narcotics Drug Psychotropic Substances Act (for short, 'NDPS Act'). FIR was registered at the police station, after completion of investigation complaint was filed. Ultimately, the case came up for trial before the learned Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases, Gangapurcity. The learned trial Judge framed charge under section 8/15 NDPS Act. The accused denied the charges and claimed trial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as six witnesses and tendered nine documents to prove its case. After close of the prosecution evidence the statement of the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which he stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case. No evidence in defence was produced. The learned trial Judge after hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the accused as indicated here-in-above. Hence, this appeal. 3 It has been contended by the learned counsel that as regards merits of the case are concerned, no challenge has been made but as regards sentence is concerned, the same requires to be reduced to the period already undergone by him. It is contended that since 30.5.2002 the accused is either in police custody or judicial custody. Meaning thereby, he has already completed 6-1/2 years of sentence. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor contends that the learned trial court has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused, therefore, no lenient view is required to be taken. I have considered the submissions made before me. In the present case, recovery which has been effected is of poppy straw and sentence has been awarded is 7 years. The accused has already undergone more than 6-1/2 years sentence. The accused at the time of committing the offence was young man and as per the submissions of the learned counsel, the family of the accused is completely ruined. Now there is nobody to support the family of the accused, therefore, according to the learned counsel, the ends of justice would meet in case the accused is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. In the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration the age of the accused, I deem it proper to reduce the sentence awarded by the learned trial court to the accused to the period already undergone by him. 4 In view of the fore-going discussions, the appeal is partly allowed and the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the accused by the learned trial court vide its order dated 30.6.2003 is reduced to the period already undergone by him. The rest of the impugned judgment and order is maintained. The accused be set at liberty forth-with if not required in any other case. (S.P. PATHAK),J.