ISSAK NABAB SHAH vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

NON­REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.828  OF 2020 (Arising from S.L.P.(Criminal) No.6232 of 2020)  @ Diary No. 6991/2020 Issak Nabab Shah …Appellant Versus The State of Maharashtra …Respondent J U D G M E N T M.R. SHAH, J. 1. Having heard the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant and the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the State, the delay caused in preferring the appeal is condoned. 1a. Leave granted. 2. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned judgment and order dated 16.03.2016 passed by the High Court Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ARJUN BISHT Date: 2020.12.03 17:03:02 IST Reason: of   Judicature   at   Bombay,   Bench   at   Aurangabad   in   Criminal 1 Appeal No. 357 of 2015, by which the High Court has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the appellant – original accused and has confirmed the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kopargaon, convicting the appellant – original accused for the offences punishable under Section 8(c) and 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NDPS Act’) and sentencing him to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and   a   fine   of   Rs.1,00,000/­   (Rupees   one   lakh),   the   original accused no.1 has preferred the present appeal. 2.1 At the outset, it is required to be noted that by order dated 13.10.2020 notice limited to the quantum of sentence has been issued by this Court. 3. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that the appellant was found to be in possession of 6.300 kilogram of Ganja – Narcotic Substance, which is above the small quantity and below commercial quantity.   It is submitted that under the NDPS Act, 20 kilogram of Ganja is considered to be   commercial   quantity   and   the   punishment   for   commercial quantity is 10 years rigorous  imprisonment and above.   It is submitted that however for the quantity between small quantity 2 and   commercial   quantity,   the   punishment   is   up   to   10   years rigorous imprisonment.  3.1 It is submitted that the appellant has already undergone six years rigorous imprisonment out of ten years rigorous imprisonment imposed by the learned trial court and confirmed by the High Court.  Therefore, it is prayed to modify   the   sentence   imposed   by   the   learned   trial   Court, confirmed by the High Court, to the sentence already undergone, considering the fact that at the relevant time the appellant was aged 24­25 years of age and he has learned a lesson and that there was no antecedents and is married and having children and the family depend upon him. 4. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent­ State has submitted that the appellant­accused was heard by the learned   trial   Court   on   sentence   and   after   considering   the aggravating factors and that the appellant has been convicted for the offence under the NDPS Act, maximum punishment has been imposed by the learned trial Court which has been confirmed by the High Court.  Therefore, it is prayed not to interfere with the punishment imposed by the learned trial Court, confirmed by the High Court. 3 5. Having   heard   the   learned   Advocates   appearing   for   the respective parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly when the quantity/Ganja recovered from the appellant was 6.300 kilogram, which is between small quantity and   commercial   quantity   and   considering   the   fact   that   the maximum   punishment   for   such   offence   is   10   years   rigorous imprisonment, out of which the appellant has already undergone six years rigorous imprisonment, we allow the present appeal in part and modify the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court, confirmed by the High Court, to the extent of imposing   the   sentence   of   six   years   rigorous   imprisonment   in place   of   ten   years   rigorous   imprisonment   as   imposed   by   the learned trial Court and confirmed by the High Court. Rest of the judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court, confirmed by the High Court, is hereby confirmed. 6. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent only. …………………………………J. [ASHOK BHUSHAN] …………………………………J. [R. SUBHASH REDDY] 4 NEW DELHI; …………………………………J. DECEMBER 03, 2020. [M.R. SHAH]     5