[2025:RJ-JP:40160] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 2217/2025. Noor Islam S/o Shri Imran Kaji, Aged About 33 Years, R/o House No. 83/22, Kali Ka Bhatta, Reech Bandar Wali Gali, Eidgah Police Station Galta Gate, Jaipur (Appellant Is Presently Lodged In Centarl Jail At Jaipur) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajat Singh Solanki For Respondent(s) : Ms. Manju Dave, P.P. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR JUDGMENT RESERVED ON :: 19/09/2025 JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON :: 07/10/2025 1. The appeal is listed today on application for suspension of sentence but with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal itself has been heard finally and being disposed of. 2. The appellant Noor Islam has preferred this appeal u/s 415 BNSS against the judgment dated 05.08.2025 passed by Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Jaipur Metro-I in NDPS Case No. 05/2019 whereby he has been convicted u/s 8/20 of NDPS Act, 1985 and sentenced for ten months of Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 4000/- and in default of payment of fine, further imprisonment of three months. 3. The allegation against the appellant is that on 06.03.2019, SHO Police Station Galta Gate, Jaipur recovered 1 kg. 870 Gram contraband article (Ganja) from the possession of the appellant. 4. Heard the rival contentions of the parties and perused the record. [2025:RJ-JP:40160] (2 of 3) [CRLAS-2217/2025] 5. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant makes a limited prayer that he does not want to challenge the conviction of appellant but confines his submissions only to the quantum of sentence. He submits that the appellant has remained in judicial custody for around nine months out of the total sentence of ten months awarded by the trial court and prays that his substantive sentence be reduced to the period already undergone by him, therefore, he may be released for the period already undergone. 6. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor while opposing the prayer fairly admits that as against sentence of ten months, the appellant has undergone more than 9 months custody though he has contended that four other cases of similar nature are pending against the appellant. 7. I have given my earnest consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and scanned the matter carefully. 8. On perusal of the impugned judgment of the trial court, this Court is of th e considered view that the trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record while holding the appellant guilty of the offence. Therefore, there is no illegality or perversity in the findings given by the trial court which warrants any interference by this Court. Even otherwise also, learned counsel for the appellant has not assailed the judgment of conviction and has restricted his arguments qua the sentence only, therefore, the conviction of the appellant is upheld. [2025:RJ-JP:40160] (3 of 3) [CRLAS-2217/2025] 9. There is no gainsaying that this Court has power to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone, especially in cases where the accused has undergone substantial period of custody. 10. In the present case, the appellant has been awarded sentence of 10 months out of which till now he has already undergone 9 months and 20 days, thus what remains is only a few 10 days custody. 11. The quantity involved is not of commercial quantity. 12. In peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the pendency of other similar cases cannot be a ground to withhold relief of sentence undergone in the present appeal. 13. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed and while maintaining the conviction as stated above, the appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him with fine as ordered by the trial Court. The appellant shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. 14. All pending applications stands disposed of. Record of the court below be sent back forthwith. (PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J Bmg/ 57