Criminal Appeal No. 2902-SB of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal No. 2902-SB of 2009 Date of decision : 27.09.2011 Sadhu Singh and another ....Appellants V/s State of Punjab ....Respondent BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Ms. Monica Jalota, Advocate as Amicus Curiae. Mr. Rajesh Bhardwaj, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab. RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL) This is an appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.11.2009, delivered by Judge, Special Court, Mansa. The trial court after recording the prosecution evidence came to the conclusion that the appellants were guilty of possession of contraband (i.e. 250 grams of opium). They were convicted under section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act’) and sentenced to undergo RI for six months and to pay a fine of `1,000/-each, in default whereof to further undergo RI for one month. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment of the trial court, the appellants have approached this court through the instant appeal. Learned amicus curiae states that sentence awarded to appellants has already been suspended by this court vide order dated Criminal Appeal No. 2902-SB of 2009 2 February 18, 2010. She submits that she is limiting her prayer only to the extent that sentence awarded to appellants be reduced to the period already undergone by them and does not assail the judgment of conviction. She submits that the appellants are not previous convicts. According to her, in the present case the quantity of opium recovered from the possession of appellants is below the commercial quantity. Learned State counsel submits that in case conviction of the appellants 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 prosecution case is as follows: On 11.08.2006, a police party headed by ASI Gurdarshan Singh in connection with patrol duty in official vehicle No. PB-12-F-330 was going from the Guduwala towards village Jatana Khurd. At about 4.30 p.m., when police party reached near canal bridge, a motorcycle was seen coming from the opposite direction. On seeing the police party, the driver of the motorcycle became nervous and tried to run away from the spot. On suspicion, accused were apprehended on the spot. The person who was driving the motorcycle disclosed his name as Gurmeet Singh and pillion rider disclosed her name as Gurmit Kaur. In the mean time, PW Amrik Singh came on the spot and was associated with the police party. After following the necessary formalities, search of motorcycle was conducted by Gurdarshan Singh, Investigating Officer, which led to recovery of 250 grams of opium wrapped in a polythene sheet from tool box, out of which two samples of 10 grams each were separated and converted into two separate parcels. The remaining opium along with polythene sheet was put Criminal Appeal No. 2902-SB of 2009 3 in separate plastic container and its separate parcel was prepared. All the aforesaid three parcels were sealed by the investigating officer with his seal bearing impression “GS”. Sample seal chit was also separately prepared. The investigating officer entrusted the seal after use to PW Amrik Singh. The entire case property along with motorcycle and its RC was taken into possession by ASI Gurdarshan Singh, Investigating Officer vide recovery memo Ex. PA attested by HC Sikander Singh, LC Sukhraj Kaur and PW Amrik Singh. After completion of investigation and on receipt of chemical examiner report Ex.PX, challan was submitted in the court for commencement of trial against the accused. Finding a prima facie case under section 18 of the Act, charge sheet was framed against the accused/appellants to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To substantiate its case against the accused, the prosecution examined as many as four witnesses. The statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded wherein the incriminating evidence available on record was put to them. They refused the incriminating circumstances and pleaded false implication. However, the accused adduce no evidence in their defence. On the basis of evidence on record, the trial court held the appellants guilty of the charge framed against them and sentenced them as already indicated above. On a perusal of record and judgment of the court below, I am of the considered view that the trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record while holding the appellants guilty of the charge framed against them. There is no infirmity or illegality in the findings given by the court below. The conviction of the appellants is, thus, affirmed. Criminal Appeal No. 2902-SB of 2009 4 Even counsel for the appellants during the course of arguments, has not assailed the judgment of conviction. She has, however, pleaded for reduction in the quantum of sentence on the ground that the appellants are first offenders and quantity of contraband recovered from them is below the commercial quantity. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case as also the fact that the appellants are first offenders and quantity of contraband recovered from them is below the commercial quantity, I deem it fit to reduce their substantive sentence to the period already undergone by them. However, the fine imposed by the trial court shall remain intact. Ordered accordingly. The amount of fine if not already paid shall be deposited within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. However, in case fine aforesaid is not deposited within the stipulated period, the modification in quantum of sentence shall stand withdrawn and the appellants shall undergo the remaining period of sentence as awarded by the trial court. Except with the modification in the quantum of sentence, as indicated hereinabove, the appeal stands dismissed. September 27, 2011 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE