Criminal Appeal No. 1112-SB of 2002 v. The State of Punjab

Present: Mr. S.P.S. Sidhu, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. T.S. Salana, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent – State. SHAM SUNDER, J. * * * * This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, dated 11.07.02, rendered by the Judge, Special Court, Ludhiana, vide which, he convicted the accused, for the offence, punishable under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Physchotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be called as the 'Act' only), and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment, for a period of 3 ½ years, and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/-, and, in default of payment thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment, for a Criminal Appeal No. 1112-SB of 2002 2 period of six months, for having been found in possession of 35 kgs of poppy husk, without any permit or licence, now falling within the ambit of non-commercial quantity.

2. The facts, in brief, are that, on 08.08.98, Surjit Chand, Sub Inspector, alongwith Satwant Singh, Sub Inspector, Jasbir Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector and some other Police officials, was holding a picket, in the area of village Jandi, on the bridge of canal. At about

12.30 AM, the accused, came from the side of village Jandi, carrying a bag, over his head. He was signalled to stop on suspicion. On search of the bag, in the presence of Ashok Puri, Deputy Superintendent of Police, who was called at the spot, 35 kgs poppy husk was recovered. Two samples of 20 gms each, were separated therefrom, and the remaining poppy husk, was kept, in the same bag. The samples and the bag, containing the remaining poppy husk, were converted into parcels, duly sealed, and taken into possession, vide a separate recovery memo. The accused, was arrested. After the completion of investigation, he was challaned.

3. On his appearance, in the Court, the accused was supplied the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution.

4. Charge under Section 15 of the Act, was framed against the accused, which was read-over and explained to him, to which, he pleaded not guilty, and claimed judicial trial.

5. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Satwant Singh, Sub Inspector (PW1), Ashok Puri, Deputy Superintendent of Police (PW2), a witness to the recovery, Gurmit Singh, Assistant Sub Criminal Appeal No. 1112-SB of 2002 3 Inspector (PW3), Surjit Chand, Sub Inspector (PW4), the Investigating Officer, Janak Raj, Head Constable (PW5), Rajesh Kumar, Sub Inspector (PW6), and Pritam Singh, Constable (PW7). Thereafter, the prosecution evidence was closed.

6. The statement of the accused, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was recorded. He was put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against him, in the prosecution evidence. He pleaded false implication. It was stated by him that he had rivalry with Tara Singh of his village, who got him falsely involved, in the instant case. It was further stated by him that, no recovery, was effected from him. He, however, did not lead any evidence in defence and closed the same.

7. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, convicted and sentenced the accused, as stated above.

8. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant.

9. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and, have gone the evidence and record of the case, carefully.

10. The Counsel for the appellant, did not challenge the conviction, recorded by the trial Court. Even otherwise, he could not successfully challenge the same. The trial Court, on due scrutiny of the evidence of Surjit Chand, Sub Inspector, PW4, the Investigating Officer, Satwant Singh, Sub Inspector, PW1, and, Ashok Puri, Deputy Superintendent of Police, PW2, recovery witnesses, was right in Criminal Appeal No. 1112-SB of 2002 4 coming to the conclusion, that the same was cogent, convincing, reliable and trustworthy and sufficient to hold the accused guilty. These witnesses were thoroughly cross-examined, but nothing of consequence, was got elicited from their mouth, which may go to discredit their evidence. The trial Court, was, thus, right in recording conviction. The judgment of conviction, rendered by the trial Court, thus, deserves to be upheld.

11. The Counsel for the appellant, however, submitted that the sentence awarded to the appellant, be reduced suitably, as he has been facing the protracted criminal proceedings since 08.08.98, i.e. for the last more than 11 years. He further submitted that during all these years, the appellant, suffered a lot of mental agony and physical pain. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, appears to be correct. The sword of damocle's, has been hanging over the head of the appellant, for the last more than 11 years. In my considered opinion, he must have learnt the lesson, by now. The ends of justice, shall be met, in case, the substantive sentence and the sentence, in default of payment of fine, are suitably reduced. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, to this extent, is accepted.

12. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, is partly accepted. The judgement of conviction, rendered by the trial Court, is upheld. The order of substantive sentence is modified, in the manner, that the appellant, shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 11 months, instead of 3 ½ years, and, in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 01 month, instead Criminal Appeal No. 1112-SB of 2002 5 of 06 months, awarded by the trial Court. However, the amount of fine, shall remain unaltered.

13. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, is directed to comply with the judgement, in accordance with the provisions of law, keeping in view the applicability of the provisions of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, promptly, on receipt of a copy of the judgement.

03.03.2010 AMODH (SHAM SUNDER) JUDGE