Listen to this articleSK. SAKKAR @ MANNAN
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1661
OF 2010, Decided on February 03, 2021
JUDGES– N.V. RAMANA, SURYA KANT & ANIRUDDHA BOSE,
JJ.
FACTS
The accused filed an
appeal challenging the Judgement passed by the High Court. On 16.11.1997, a secret information was received owing to
which a raid was conducted which resulted in lodging of the FIR under Section 20 the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”). 11kgs of ganja was recovered
from the accused and the co-accused Kalachand Saha and other 3-4 occupants
managed to flee. Therefore, only based upon the statements of the two arrested
persons, five persons were charge sheeted but the main co-accused person was
not even charge sheeted. Since, no independent witnesses were found and when
the other three witnesses turned hostile.. Thus, all the -co-accuseds were
acquitted but the Appellant who was main accused was convicted and sentenced
with five years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 20,000.
ISSUE
Whether the High Court erred convicting the
accused under Section 20 of NDPS Act which came into force in 2001 and the
offence was committed in 1997?
HELD
The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal and modified the sentence of
five years rigorous imprisonment to the period of sentence already undergone,
the bail bond of appellant is discharged but he has to pay the fine of Rs.
20,000. The Court considering various mitigating factors argued by the Counsel
of Appellant like (i) the
appellant has suffered
protracted trial for more than 23 years; (ii) he alone has been convicted while
his co-accused are acquitted; (iii) the appellant was not involved in any other
case under the NDPS Act or other Penal Laws; (iv) the appellant
has already undergone
actual sentence of 2 years
4 months and 16 days out of the total sentence of five years; (v) and
that the appellant has not misused the concession of bail granted by this Court
on 02.11.2012. The Court taking note of such mitigating factor reduced the
sentence of the appellant has already undergone actual sentence viz a period of
2 years 4 months and 16 days