Criminal Appeal No. 1919-SB of 2002 v. State of Punjab

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 04.10.02, rendered by the Judge, Special Court, Sangrur, 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 one year, and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, and, in default Criminal Appeal No. 1919-SB of 2002 2 thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment, for a period of one month, for having been found in possession of 7 kgs 500 gms 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 03.11.97, Bhupinder Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, alongwith other Police officials, was on the patrol duty, at the bridge of canal Bhakra, in the area of village Mahasinghwala. The accused, was seen coming, on foot, carrying a plastic bag, on his head. On seeing the Police party, the accused, tried to slip away, but he was apprehended. Bhupinder Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, told the accused, that he suspected some contraband, in the bag, carried by him, and wanted to search the same. The accused, was told, that the search of the bag, could be conducted, in the presence of a Gazetted Officer, to which he agreed to. The consent memo PD of the accused, was reduced into writing, duly signed by him and attested by the witnesses. Thereafter, on receiving the message, Amarjit Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, reached at the spot, and, in his presence, the search of the bag, was conducted, wherefrom, poppy husk was recovered. Two samples of poppy husk, weighing 250 gms each, were taken out, and the remaining quantity thereof, on weighment, came to be 7 kgs. The samples and the bag, containing the remaining poppy husk, were converted into parcels, duly sealed with the seal, bearing impression 'BS'. Sample seal chit P1, was prepared. The seal, after use, was handed over to Jagjit Singh. Thereafter, the Deputy Criminal Appeal No. 1919-SB of 2002 3 Superintendent of Police, attested the case property and the sample seal chit P1. The entire case property, was taken into possession, vide recovery memo PB, attested by Amarjit Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, and the other witnesses. On personal search of the accused, Rs. 10/-, were recovered, which were taken into possession, vide memo PC. Ruqa PG, was sent to the Police Station, on the basis whereof, FIR PG/2, was registered. Rough site plan PF of the place of recovery and arrest memo PG, were prepared. On reaching the Police Station, the accused, and the entire case property, were produced, before Swaran Singh, Station House Officer, who after verification, put his seal, bearing impression 'SS' on the same (case property). Thereafter, the sample, was sent, to the Chemical Examiner. Report of the Chemical Examiner, was received. After the completion of investigation, the accused, was challaned.

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

4. After the case was received by commitment, in the Court of Sessions, 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 Swaran Singh, Inspector/Station House Officer (PW1), Ranjit Singh, Head Constable (PW2), Amarjit Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police Criminal Appeal No. 1919-SB of 2002 4 (PW3), and, Bhupinder Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector (PW4). The Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State, tendered into evidence, affidavit PH of Harjinder Singh, Constable, and, gave up Waheguru Singh, being unncessary. Thereafter, he closed the prosecution evidence.

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. It was stated by him that a false case, had been planted against 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 through 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 Bhupinder Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector (PW4), the Investigating Officer, and Amarjit Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police (PW3), recovery witnesses, was right in coming to the Criminal Appeal No. 1919-SB of 2002 5 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 03.11.97, i.e. for the last more than 12 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 12 years. In my considered opinion, he must have learnt the lesson, by now. In my considered opinion, the ends of justice, shall be met, in case, the substantive sentence is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for 04 months, from 01 year, awarded by the trial Court. 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 04 months, instead of 01 year, awarded by the trial Court. However, the sentence Criminal Appeal No. 1919-SB of 2002 6 of fine, and in default of payment 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.

19.01.2010 AMODH (SHAM SUNDER) JUDGE