Criminal Appeal No. 1133-SB of 2002 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh.
Criminal Appeal No. 1133-SB of 2002
Date of Decision: 27.3.2009
Sohan Singh
...Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA.
Present: Mr. Sant Pal Singh Sidhu, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Assistant Advocate
General, Punjab, for the State.
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral)
Sohan Singh son of Ajit Singh, was convicted and sentenced
by the Judge, Special Court, Ludhiana, to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default
whereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for nine months for
having in his possession 25 Kgs. & 500 grams of poppy husk.
In the present case, appellant was apprehended by a police
party led by Sukhdev Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, on 23.9.1998 and
poppy husk weighing 25 Kgs. & 500 grams was recovered from the
appellant.
Prosecution had examined six witnesses.
In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant had
Criminal Appeal No. 1133-SB of 2002 2
denied all the incriminating circumstances and stated that he was falsely
implicated.
Mr. Sidhu has very fairly stated that even though no
independent witness was examined but he will not be in a position to
impeach the credibility of police witnesses and except to point out
discrepancies and contradictions, there is nothing in his arsenal to assail
the conviction. Mr. Sidhu has stated that according to the table
accompanying the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,
1985 (hereinafter to be referred as `the Act’), under Sub Clause vii(a)
and xxiii(3) of Section 2 of the Act, under entry No. 110, the commercial
quantity has been described as 50 Kgs. Under Section 15(b) of the Act
where the contravention involves quantity lesser than commercial
quantity but greater than small quantity, the maximum punishment
prescribed is for a term which can extend to ten years and with fine
which may extend to one lakh rupees.
Mr. Sidhu states that the trial Court had awarded four years
sentence and a fine of Rs.5,000/- upon the appellant. It has been
submitted that in the present case, recovery was effected on 23.9.1998.
The appellant has suffered a protracted trial of more than ten years and
the appellant was 35 years old when the recovery was effected. Mr.
Sidhu has further stated that the appellant has large family to support
and in the last ten years, he has committed no offence. Therefore,
sentence awarded upon the appellant be reduced taking into
consideration antecedents, protracted trial and the fact that in case
appellant is sent behind the bars, his family may face vagaries.
I find merit in this contention of counsel for the appellant.
Criminal Appeal No. 1133-SB of 2002 3
Therefore, sentence awarded upon the appellant is reduced to
one & a half years. However, sentence of fine is maintained.
With the observations made above, the present appeal is
disposed off.
(Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia)
Judge
March 27, 2009
“DK”