Criminal Appeal No. 201-SB of 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No. 201 of 2009
Date of decision: May 30, 2009
Raj Kumar -Appellant.
Versus
State of Punjab -RespondentCoram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajan Gupta
Present: Mr. DS Dalee, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr. Shilesh Gupta, DAG, Punjab.
Rajan Gupta, J.(Oral)
The appellant has been convicted by the Judge, Special Court,
Sangrur for being in possession of 2 Kgs of opium.
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 11-4-2007, the police
intercepted a person, coming on a motorcycle with a plastic bag slinging on
his shoulder. On seeing the police party, he tried to retreat. He was
apprehended on suspicion. After following the necessary formalities, search
of the bag in possession of the accused was conducted. This led to
Criminal Appeal No. 201-SB of 2009 2
recovery of 2 Kgs of opium.
During trial, the prosecution examined as many as five
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. He examined three witnesses in his defence.
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 18 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act,1985
having been found in possession of the contraband in question. He was
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and
to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of payment thereof to further undergo
RI for three months.
On a perusal of the judgment, I am of the considered view that
the trial Court has 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 a very poor man having four small children to support.
Learned State counsel has placed on record a reply by way of
affidavit dated 24.3.2009 of Superintendent, District Jail, Sangrur,
according to which the appellant had undergone 1 year 11 months & 11
Criminal Appeal No. 201-SB of 2009 3
days of sentence as on 23-3-2009.
Keeping in view the fact that the appellant is a first offender, a
very poor man having small children, I deem it fit to reduce his sentence to
two years. However, the sentence of fine shall 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 three months.
Except with the modification in the quantum of sentence, as
indicated hereinabove, the appeal is dismissed.
[Rajan Gupta]
Judge
May 30, 2009.
‘ask’