Issak Nabab Shah vs The State Of Maharashtra on 3 December, 2020

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
ARJUN BISHT
Date: 2020.12.03
17:03:02 IST

of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Criminal
Reason:

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