Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
Supreme Court of India
Issak Nabab Shah vs The State Of Maharashtra on 3 December, 2020
Author: Ashok Bhushan
Bench: Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy, M.R. Shah
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 JUDGMENT
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
of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Criminal
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
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
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.
[R. SUBHASH REDDY] 4 NEW DELHI; …………………………………J. DECEMBER 03, 2020. [M.R. SHAH] 5