9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 1326X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R In these two appeals, one coming from the judgment of the High Court of Gujarat and other from the High Court of Bombay, the appellant is the same. In both cases he was charged for the offences under Sections 8(c), 20(b) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the 'NDPS Act'). Insofar as the case filed in Gujarat is concerned, it was registered as NDPS Case No. 1/2002 and was tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Himmatnagar, Gujarat. Vide judgment and order dated 09.03.2004 passed by the Trial Court, the appellant was convicted for the aforesaid offences and was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lakh with default clause to u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It was also argued that the statement was taken in Hindi whereas the appellant only knows Urdu. We have considered all the aforesaid submissions in the light of the findings recorded by the Trial Court and upheld by the High Court. We are not able to find any substance in the aforesaid contentions as we find that the statement recorded was voluntary, which was never retracted by the appellant. Both the courts below have arrived at the same finding. The second contention of the learned senior counsel is also not having any merit. We further find that the appellant had accepted that he knew Hindi although he could not write in Hindi and while recording the statement it is specifically stated that the statement was read out to the appellant, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the aforesaid death sentence which is the subject matter of other Criminal Appeal No. 1322 of 2014. After going through the impugned judgment, we find that insofar as conviction of the appellant under the aforesaid offence is concerned, it does not call for any interference. Even Mr. Grover, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, led more emphasis on the sentence that is awarded to the appellant in this case. It is not in dispute that for the aforesaid offences, minimum sentence that is to be awarded is ten years rigorous imprisonment and it can go upto twenty years. However, in case of previous conviction there is a provision for enhancement of punishment stipulated in Section 31 of the NDPS Act and it reads as under: "[ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n case of previous conviction, for second and every subsequent offence the convicted person would be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to one and one-half times of the maximum term of imprisonment as well as one and one-half times of the maximum amount of fine. Sub-section (2) of Section 31, on the other hand, prescribes that when a person referred to in sub-section (1) is liable to be punished with a minimum term of imprisonment and to a minimum amount of fine, the minimum punishment for such person shall be one and one-half times of the minimum term of imprisonment and one and one-half times of the minimum amount of fine. In the instant case, the High Court has given thirty years rigorous imprisonment to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
