Rajkumar Bachkaiya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:88483
1 CRA-2604-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B. P. SHARMA
nd
ON THE 2 OF NOVEMBER, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2604 of 2025
CNR No.: MPHC010170172025
RAJKUMAR BACHKAIYA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Shivansh Sehgal - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Vijay Kumar Pandey Dy.G A for respondent/State.
ORDER
This criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, read with Section 415 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, being aggrieved by the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 23.10.2024 passed by the learned
Special Judge, NDPS Act, Narsinghpur, in Special Case NDPS No.27/2023,
whereby the learned Special Judge has convicted the appellant for the
offence punishable under Section 8 read with Section 21(b) of the Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the
NDPS Act') and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five
years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, with a further direction to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for one year in default of payment of fine.
2. As per the prosecution story, on 15.08.2023, the police received
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIKRAM SINGH
Signing time: 04-Nov-26
4:41:59 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:88483
2 CRA-2604-2025
secret information regarding the possession and transportation of a narcotic

substance, namely smack, by the appellant for the purpose of sale. After
recording the information and completing the necessary formalities, the
police proceeded to the spot and apprehended the appellant. Upon search, 10
grams of smack was allegedly recovered from his possession. The recovered
substance was seized and samples were drawn in accordance with the
prescribed procedure. Thereafter, an offence was registered against the
appellant at Crime No.709/2023 at Police Station Gadarwara, District
Narsinghpur, for the offence punishable under Sections 8 and 21 of the
NDPS Act. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed
before the competent Court. After recording the statements of the
prosecution witnesses and appreciating the evidence available on record, the
learned trial Court found the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under
Section 8 read with Section 21(b) of the NDPS Act and sentenced him as
mentioned hereinabove. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence, the appellant has preferred the present
appeal.
3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits that
the appellant does not wish to challenge the finding of conviction recorded
by the learned trial Court and confines his challenge to the quantum of
sentence. It is submitted that the appellant is a first-time offender and has no
previous criminal antecedents. It is further submitted that only 10 grams of
smack has been recovered from the possession of the appellant, which is
above the small quantity of 5 grams but substantially below the commercial
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIKRAM SINGH
Signing time: 04-Nov-26
4:41:59 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:88483
3 CRA-2604-2025
quantity of 250 grams. It is also submitted that the appellant has already

undergone incarceration for 3 years, 2 months and 18 days. Considering the
quantity of contraband involved, the fact that this is the appellant's first
offence and the period of incarceration already undergone, learned counsel
prays that the substantive jail sentence may be reduced to the period already
undergone by the appellant.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has supported the
findings recorded by the learned trial Court and submitted that, after proper
appreciation of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned trial
Court has rightly convicted the appellant. Accordingly, learned counsel prays
for dismissal of the appeal.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the
record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appeal deserves to be
partly allowed to the extent of modification of the sentence.
6. Though learned counsel for the appellant has not assailed the
finding of conviction on merits, this Court has independently examined the
evidence available on record to satisfy itself as to the legality and
sustainability of the finding of conviction. Upon perusal of the statements of
the prosecution witnesses and the documentary evidence available on record,
this Court finds that the learned trial Court has properly appreciated the
evidence and no illegality or perversity is found in the finding of conviction
recorded by it. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant for the offence
punishable under Section 8 read with Section 21(b) of the NDPS Act is
hereby affirmed.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIKRAM SINGH
Signing time: 04-Nov-26
4:41:59 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:88483
4 CRA-2604-2025
7. So far as the question of sentence is concerned, it is apparent from

the record that only 10 grams of smack was recovered from the possession of
the appellant. The said quantity is above the notified small quantity of 5
grams but substantially below the commercial quantity of 250 grams. It is
also submitted on behalf of the appellant that he is a first-time offender and
has no previous criminal antecedents. Further, the appellant has already
undergone incarceration for 3 years, 2 months and 18 days. The nature and
quantity of the contraband involved, the absence of previous criminal
antecedents and the substantial period of incarceration already undergone by
the appellant are relevant circumstances for considering the quantum of
sentence. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court
is of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be met if the
substantive jail sentence imposed upon the appellant is reduced to the period
already undergone by him, while maintaining the fine amount imposed by
the learned trial Court.
8. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The finding of
conviction recorded by the learned trial Court for the offence punishable
under Section 8 read with Section 21(b) of the NDPS Act is hereby affirmed.
However, the substantive sentence of five years' rigorous imprisonment
imposed upon the appellant is reduced to the period of imprisonment already
undergone by him, i.e. 3 years, 2 months and 18 days. The fine amount of
Rs.5,000/- imposed by the learned trial Court is enhanced to Rs.25,000/-. The
default sentence imposed by the learned trial Court shall also remain
unchanged. The fine amount, if already deposited, shall be adjusted
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIKRAM SINGH
Signing time: 04-Nov-26
4:41:59 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:88483
5 CRA-2604-2025
accordingly.

9. The appellant be released forthwith, if he is not required in any
other case. The appellant is directed to deposit the enhanced fine amount
within a period of one month, failing which the appellant shall undergo the
default sentence as directed by the learned trial Court.
10. With the aforesaid modification in the sentence, the criminal
appeal stands partly allowed and disposed of.
11. Let a copy of this judgment along with the record be sent to the
learned trial Court for information and necessary compliance.
(B. P. SHARMA)
JUDGE
SM

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIKRAM SINGH
Signing time: 04-Nov-26
4:41:59 PM