Criminal Appeal No. 1455-SB of 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No. 1455-SB of 2009
Date of decision: July 31, 2009
Sewak Singh -Appellant.
Versus
State of Punjab -Respondent
Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajan Gupta
Present: Mr. PKS Phoolka, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr. Shilesh Gupta, DAG, Punjab.
Rajan Gupta, J.(Oral)
The appellant has been convicted by the Judge, Special Court,
Mansa for being in possession of 20.200 Kilograms 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 2-6-2005, the
appellant was seen coming towards canal with a plastic bag on his head. On
seeing the police party, he threw the bag and 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
recovery of 20.200 Kgs of poppy husk.
Criminal Appeal No. 1455-SB of 2009 2
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. In his defence, he examined one witness.
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.1000/-, 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 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 sole bread winner in the family.
Learned State counsel has placed on record a reply by way of
affidavit of Superintendent, Central Jail, Bathinda, according to which the
appellant had undergone 5 months & 12 days of sentence as on 22-7-2009.
Keeping in view the fact that the appellant is a first offender, a
poor man and sole bread earner in the family, I deem it fit to reduce his
Criminal Appeal No. 1455-SB of 2009 3
sentence to six months’ RI. 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
July 31, 2009.
‘ask’