Criminal Appeal No. 2524-SB of 2008 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No. 2524-SB of 2008 (O & M)
Date of decision: April 15, 2009
Rajesh -Appellant.
Versus
State of Punjab -Respondent
Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajan Gupta
Present: Mr. HS Rakhra, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr. Shilesh Gupta, DAG, Punjab.
Rajan Gupta, J.
The appellant has been convicted by the Special Judge, Mansa
for being in possession of 35.100 Kgs of poppy husk.
Learned counsel for the appellant states that he is limiting his
prayer only to the extent of reduction in the sentence awarded and does not
assail the judgment of conviction.
Learned State counsel, on the other hand submits that in case
conviction of the appellant is maintained, the Court may reduce the
sentence as deemed appropriate in the circumstances of the case.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
Briefly, the facts of the case are that on 24-11-2006, the police
intercepted a person, sitting in the Khatans( i.e. borrow pits) folding mouth
of a gunny bag. He was apprehended on suspicion. After following
Criminal Appeal No. 2524-SB of 2008 2
the necessary formalities, search of the bag in possession of the accused was
conducted. This led to recovery of 35.100 Kgs of poppy husk.
During trial, the prosecution examined as many as four
witnesses in support of its case.
The statement of the accused was recorded in terms of Section
313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein the incriminating evidence
available on record was put to him. He pleaded innocence and claimed false
implication in this case.
On the basis of the evidence on record, the trial Court came to
the conclusion that the appellant was guilty of the offence punishable under
Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, having
been found in possession of the contraband in question. He was sentenced
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine
of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment thereof to further undergo RI for 3
months.
On a perusal of the judgment, I am of the considered view that
the trial Court correctly arrived at a conclusion that the appellant was guilty
of the offence alleged against him. The conviction of the appellant is, thus,
affirmed.
Even counsel for the appellant, during the course of arguments,
has not assailed the judgment of conviction. He, however, pleaded for
reduction in the quantum of sentence on the ground that the appellant is a
first offender and has already faced the agony of trial for a number of years.
Learned State counsel has placed on record a reply by way of
affidavit dated 31.3.2009 of Superintendent, Central Jail, Bathinda,
Criminal Appeal No. 2524-SB of 2008 3
according to which the appellant had undergone 5 months & 3 days of
sentence as on 27-3-2009.
Keeping in view the fact that the appellant is a first offender,
the recovery effected from his possession falls under the head ‘non-
commercial quantity’ and he has faced trial for over 2½ years, I deem it fit
to reduce his sentence to 6 months. Ordered accordingly.
Counsel for the appellant submits that the amount of fine as
imposed by the Court below shall be deposited before the trial Court.
Except with the modification in the quantum of sentence, as
indicated hereinabove, the appeal is dismissed.
[Rajan Gupta]
Judge
April 15, 2009.
‘ask’