State v. Reena

1. By way of the present application, the applicant/appellant seeks condonation of delay of 49 days in filing the appeal.

2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed, the delay of 49 days is condoned, and the application is disposed of.

1. By way of the present appeal filed under Section 377 Cr.P.C, the State, being aggrieved by the inadequacy of sentence imposed on the respondent by the Trial Court, seeks enhancement of the same.

2. Pertinently, FIR No. 127/2019 was registered against the respondent at P.S. Mahendra Park under Sections 20/61/85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS) and Section 77 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act); and she was convicted on 02.07.2019, for the offence punishable under Section 20 NDPS and Section 77 JJ Act. Vide the order on sentence dated 05.08.2019, the Trial Court, while considering the period already spent in custody by the respondent along with other mitigating factors, sentenced her to imprisonment for the period already undergone by her, for the offences punishable under Section 20 NDPS and Section 77 JJ Act. She was further directed to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- for the offence under Section 20 NDPS, and in default thereof, to undergo SI for one year; and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- for the offence under Section 77 JJ Act, and in default thereof, to further undergo SI for one year.

3. Briefly noted, the facts as borne out from the record are that on 15.03.2019, SI Vikas received secret information that the respondent herein would be passing from near P.S. Mahendra Park at around 1:25-1:30 PM, carrying ganja in a black polythene bag. On being pointed out by the secret informer at the relevant time, the respondent was identified and detained. Proceedings under Section 50 NDPS were initiated, and the concerned SHO and ACP reached the spot. WCt. Rachna first searched the respondent, and thereafter her black polythene bag, from which 1.542 kilograms of ganja was recovered. On the basis of this recovery, the concerned FIR bearing NO. 127/19 under Sections 20/61/85 NDPS and Section 77 JJ Act was registered, and the respondent was arrested. Upon completion of investigation, a chargesheet was duly filed by the police. The Trial Court framed charges under Section 20 NDPS and Section 77 JJ Act against the respondent, who pleaded guilty and did not claim trial.

4. Learned APP for the State submits that the ganja recovered from the respondent, being 1.542 kilograms, falls within the definition of intermediate quantity under NDPS, and the sentence imposed upon the respondent by the Trial Court is unduly lenient. He contends that the charges to which the respondent pleaded guilty are serious in nature and that especially in view of the respondent being involved in other criminal cases, the reformative approach adopted by the Trial Court is misplaced.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the respondent has not assailed the judgment of conviction, and the only issue before this Court, therefore, is regarding the quantum of sentence. He contends that only 1.542 kilograms of ganja was recovered from the respondent, and the same is categorized as an “intermediate” quantity under NDPS, and not “commercial”. He states that the respondent has already spent over four months in custody in connection to the present case, and was released from jail upon depositing the total fine of Rs.1,00,000/- imposed upon her by the Trial Court. Learned counsel places reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court titled Aarikatla Musalaiah Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh, decided on 02.12.2024, in SLP (Crl.) No. 11378/2024, in support of his plea for leniency. He states that the Trial Court rightly adopted a reformative approach by imposing a lenient sentence, and the same is neither illegal nor inadequate, and does not warrant interference, especially considering that the other FIRs registered against the respondent are not under NDPS.

6. In Aarikatla Musalaiah (supra), an intermediate quantity of 4 kilograms of ganja was seized from the offender, he was convicted under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) NDPS, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years by the Trial Court. However, the sentence was reduced to 2 ½ years by the High Court, and having regard to the mitigating circumstances, the Supreme Court released the convict by reducing his sentence to the period already undergone, when he had served 6 months under incarceration.

7. A perusal of the impugned order on sentence shows that the Trial Court took into consideration the respondent’s age, family status, medical condition, the fact that she had already remained in judicial custody for over four months, the recovery of 1.542 kilograms of ganja falling in the intermediate category, and her voluntary plea of guilt. Taking these factors into account, the Court sentenced her to imprisonment for the period already undergone, alongwith a fine of Rs.50,000/- for the offence under Section 20 NDPS, in default whereof she was to undergo SI for one year, and a further fine of Rs.50,000/- for the offence under Section 77 JJ Act, in default whereof she was to undergo SI for one year.

8. The latest nominal roll on record dated 07.08.2025 reflects that the respondent was released from jail on 07.08.2019 upon depositing the fine amount before the Court. A status report bearing the signatures of the SHO, P.S. Mahendra Park, records that the respondent has been involved in four other criminal proceedings, two of which stand compounded, and it is stated by the learned counsels that she is on bail in the remaining two.

9. It is relevant to note, however, that the present case pertains to the year 2019 and more than six years have since elapsed. The respondent, now aged about 43 years, had voluntarily pleaded guilty, thereby saving judicial time, and had remained in judicial custody for over four months prior to her release. She is also stated to be the sole breadwinner of her family, supporting her handicapped husband and two children, besides suffering from medical issues including a stone ailment.

10. This Court is of the considered view that, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the sentence awarded by the Trial Court is just, proper, and calls for no interference.

11. In view of the above, the impugned judgment as well as order on sentence are upheld and the present appeal is dismissed.

12. A copy of this judgment be communicated to the Trial Court.

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI (JUDGE) AUGUST 12, 2025 (corrected & released on 26.8.2025)