Jaswinder Kaur @ Bholan vs State Of Punjab on 15 May, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jaswinder Kaur @ Bholan vs State Of Punjab on 15 May, 2009
Criminal Appeal No. 637-SB of 2009                   1


                          Criminal Appeal No. 637-SB of 2009
                          Date of decision: May 15, 2009

Jaswinder Kaur @ Bholan                -Appellant.


State of Punjab                        -Respondent
Coram        Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajan Gupta

Present:     Mr. Madan Mohan, Advocate, for the appellant.
             Mr. Shilesh Gupta, DAG, Punjab.

Rajan Gupta, J.(Oral)

The appellant has been convicted by the Judge, Special Court,

Jalandhar for being in possession of 15 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 9-5-2005, the police

intercepted a woman with a heavy plastic bag. On seeing the police party,

she tried to retreat. She was apprehended on suspicion. After following

the necessary formalities, the plastic bag carried by her was searched,

which led to recovery of 15 Kgs of poppy husk.

To substantiate its case against the appellant, the prosecution
Criminal Appeal No. 637-SB of 2009 2

examined as many as seven witnesses.

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 her. She denied the allegations of the

prosecution and pleaded false implication.

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. She was sentenced

to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a

fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment thereof to further undergo RI for

ten days.

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 her. The conviction of the appellant is, thus,


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, a poor house wife having three small children to look after

and her husband is just a labourer.

Learned State counsel has placed on record affidavit of

Superintendent, Central Jail, Jalandhar, according to which the appellant has

undergone 3 months & 16 days of her substantive sentence as on


Keeping in view the fact that the appellant is a poor lady, a first
Criminal Appeal No. 637-SB of 2009 3

offender, and the recovery effected from her possession falls under the

head ‘non-commercial quantity’, I deem it fit to reduce her substantive

sentence to the period already undergone. The amount of fine imposed by

the trial Court shall, however, remain the same. Ordered accordingly.

The amount of fine, if not already paid, shall be deposited

within a week of receipt of copy of this judgment, failing which the

appellant shall undergo further RI for ten days.

Except with the modification in the quantum of sentence, as

indicated hereinabove, the appeal is dismissed.

[Rajan Gupta]
May 15, 2009.


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information