Criminal Appeal No. 3284-SB of 2011 v. The State of Punjab
Case at a glance
- Order date
- 15 Dec 2011
- Bench
- KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
Outcome
Disposed of
appellant, the present appeal is disposed of
Provisions considered
Judgment
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. D.R. Singla, Advocate for the appellant. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Issue notice of motion. On asking of the Court, Ms. Sonia Dhillon, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent. A copy of appeal has been supplied to her. The present appellant, as per the judgment of the trial Court, is aged about 70 years. He has filed the present appeal to assail the impugned judgment dated 2.12.2011, passed by the Judge, Special Court, Patiala, whereby he has been held guilty of offence under Section 15 of the Narcotic Substances & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), in the case arising out of FIR No. 160 dated 17.8.2007, registered at Police Station Patran. Vide a separate order of even date, the appellant was sentenced to undergo Criminal Appeal No. 3284-SB of 2011 2 rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of ` 2,000, in default whereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 15 days.
Mr. D.R. Singla, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellant, at the outset, has submitted that he will not assail conviction of the appellant as he has nothing in his arsenal except to point out discrepancies, improvements and contradictions in the testimonies of the official witnesses. He further submits that he is convinced that the discrepancies, to be pointed out, are not such that the appellant will be entitled to acquittal. However, learned counsel has submitted that mere 10 Kgs. of poppy husk has been recovered from possession of the appellant, which is a non-commercial quantity. He further submits that the appellant, as on 6.12.2011, has undergone 21 days and about one month, as on today, out of his actual sentence of three months rigorous imprisonment. He has placed on record a custody certificate, issued by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Patiala. As per the certificate, relied upon by learned counsel, the appellant is not involved in any other case.
Operative part
Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that indeed age, quantity recovered and the period undergone are taken by the Courts as mitigating circumstances and sentence is their discretion. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the mitigating circumstances, so divulged by the appellant, ought to be given due consideration by it. Accordingly, sentence of 3 months rigorous imprisonment, awarded upon the appellant, for the offence under Section 15 of the Act, is reduced to that of 1½ month. Criminal Appeal No. 3284-SB of 2011 3 With the modifications in the sentence, awarded upon the appellant, the present appeal is disposed of. December 15, 2011 “DK” (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: appellant, the present appeal is disposed of
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 15 Dec 2011. The bench was KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.