-1- Criminal Appeal No.2211-SB of 2005 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Appeal No.2211-SB of 2005. Date of Decision: May 21, 2010. Bhola Khan ...Appellant VERSUS State of Punjab ...Respondent 1. Whether the Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. Present: Mr. Dhruv Dayal, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Vishal Munjal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. Impugned in this appeal is the judgment of conviction and the sentence order dated 08.09.2005 passed by the Judge, Special Court, Barnala, whereby appellant Bhola Khan was convicted under Section 15 of the of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic -2- Criminal Appeal No.2211-SB of 2005 Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- in default whereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year. The facts of the prosecution case, in brief, are that on 17.7.2003, a police party headed by Sub Inspector Paramjit Singh was going from Village Sehjra towards Village Chuhanke Khurd in a vehicle in connection with patrolling and detection of bad elements. At the turning of village Sehjra, they met Gurmail Singh, an independent witness, and he was joined in the police party. When the police party reached near village Sehjra, the accused-appellant, who tried to hide himself behind the bushes on seeing the police party, was apprehended by the police with a gunny bag in his possession. Sub Inspector Paramjit Singh, suspecting that there was some contraband in the gunny bags and intending to search the bag, apprised the accused-appellant of his right being searched in the presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted officer. The accused reposed faith in the Investigating Officer. Consent memo of the accused in this regard was prepared. Thereafter, the said gunny bag was searched by the police party which led to the recovery of poppy husk. Two samples of 250 grams each of poppy husk were separated from the bag. The residue poppy husk, on weighment, was found to be 30 kgs 500 gms in the gunny bag. The samples and the poppy husk contained in the gunny bag were taken into possession by the police after sealing them. Ruqa was -3- Criminal Appeal No.2211-SB of 2005 sent to the Police Station and on its basis formal First Information Report was registered against the accused. Rough site plan of the place of recovery was prepared. On personal search of the accused, Rs.200/- were recovered which were taken into possession by the police. The accused-appellant was arrested after preparing the grounds of arrest. After receipt of the report of the Chemical Examiner and on completion of the investigation, challan against the accused was put in Court. He did not plead guilty and claimed trial. After recording the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid. Learned counsel for the appellant, after arguing the matter for some time and comprehending that the case against the appellant stood proved, did not challenge the conviction of the appellant for the aforesaid offence. He, however, submitted that lenient view in the matter of sentence may be taken as the appellant was found in possession of non-commercial quantity of poppy husk. In this case, 31 Kgs of poppy husk was recovered from the appellant and he has undergone about four years out of five years of the sentence imposed upon him by the trial Court. The occurrence relates to July, 2003 and the Sword of Damocles has remained hanging over the head of the appellant for more -4- Criminal Appeal No.2211-SB of 2005 than six and a half years. Under the circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice will be adequately met with if the sentence of rigorous imprisonment awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him. I order accordingly. The fine of Rs.50,000/- imposed upon the appellant by the trial Court is also reduced to Rs.5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. While maintaining the conviction of the appellant for the aforesaid offence, the impugned sentence order stands modified to the extent indicated above. With the above modification in the sentence order, this appeal is hereby dismissed. May 21, 2010. ( MOHINDER PAL ) ak JUDGE