Hari Singh vs State Of Punjab on 1 April, 2009

 CRA No.372-SB of 2009                    1


    IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB &
              HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

                               CRA No.372-SB of 2009 (O&M)
                               Date of decision: 01.04.2009

Hari Singh                                          ...Appellant

                            Versus

State of Punjab                                     ...Respondent

CORAM:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA

Present:     Mr. D.R. Singla, Advocate, for the appellant.
             Mr. Shailesh Gupta, DAG, Punjab.

Rajan Gupta, J.

The appellant in this case has been convicted by the Special

Court, Barnala for possession of 5 Kgs of poppy husk. He has been

sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a

fine of Rs.1000/- and in default thereof to further undergo rigorous

imprisonment for a period of one month.

The present appeal has been filed challenging the judgment

aforesaid passed by the Special Court, Barnala.

Learned counsel for the appellant at the outset submits that

he does not challenge the conviction of the appellant and he confines his

prayer to reduction of sentence of the appellant. He further contends

that since there is no minimum punishment prescribed in the statute, the

sentence may be reduced to that already undergone by the appellant.

The learned counsel for the State submits that in case the

conviction of the appellant is maintained, he shall have no objection to

reduction of sentence. He agrees that no minimum punishment is
CRA No.372-SB of 2009 2

prescribed in the statute for recovery of contraband which is non-

commercial in nature. He has placed on record Custody Certificate

dated 26-3-2009 issued by Superintendent, District Jail, Sangrur,

according to which the appellant has undergone sentence of two months

and 13 days as on 23.3.2009.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

In view of the fact that the learned counsel for the appellant

has not challenged the conviction and has limited his prayer to reduction

of sentence, I am of the considered view that his sentence may be

reduced to that already undergone by him.

Even otherwise, on scrutiny of the evidence of the

prosecution witnesses, I am of considered view that the appellant has

been rightly convicted by the trial court. Thus, conviction of the

appellant is maintained.

However, in view of the fact that there is no other case

pending against the appellant and he appears to be a first offender, it is

directed that sentence of the appellant shall be reduced to that already

undergone by him and fine shall be reduced to Rs.500/-; in default of

payment of fine, he shall further undergo further rigorous imprisonment

for one month.

The present appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

(RAJAN GUPTA)
JUDGE
April 01, 2009
‘rajpal’