http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  201 of 2008

PETITIONER: STATE OF M.P.

RESPONDENT: MAKHAN SINGH

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28/01/2008

BENCH: CJI K.G. BALAKRISHNAN & TARUN CHATTERJEE & R.V. RAVEENDRAN

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT O R D E R

CRIMINAL APPEAL  NO.201 OF 2008 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.3453/2005) WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.226/2008 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) 715/2008.. CRLMP.No.17560/2007)

               Delay condoned.                 Leave granted.                 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the responde nt.                 Special leave petition (Crl.) No.3453/2005 is filed by the State and other S LP is filed  by the accused.  The accused was found guilty by the Special Court, of offence punishable  under Section 8 read with Section 15(C)  of the NDPS Act and sentenced to 10 years R.I. and  fine of Rs.1,00,000/-.   By the impugned judgment the learned Single Judge of the High  Court confirmed the conviction but reduced the sentence to the period already undergone  (which was two years and three months).  The State has filed the appeal contending that the  minimum sentence has been prescribed under law for the offence punishable under Section 8  read with Section 15(C) of the  NDPS  Act and  the learned  Single Judge  

                                               -2- was not justified in reducing the sentence.  In the appeal preferred by the accused it is  contended that the accused had got serious contentions as regards conviction and the learned   Single Judge, without considering them, has merely reduced the sentence to the period  already undergone.                 The impugned judgment does not give any reason for confirming the conviction .    Nor had the learned Single Judge given any reason for reducing the minimum sentence for  the offence allegedly committed by the accused.  Both parties are justified in their grievan ce.   The judgment passed by the learned Single Judge is not sustainable under law and the same  is set aside.  Consequently, the criminal appeal preferred by the accused is restored to the  file  of the High Court and we request the High Court to dispose of the same on merits.  We are  told that the accused has already under custody for a long period.  The High Court is,  therefore,  requested to expedite the proceeding and dispose of the matter within a period o f  six months.                 The appeals are disposed of  accordingly.