Criminal Appeal No. 332-SB of 2003 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal No. 332-SB of 2003 Date of Decision: 21.01.2010 Lakha Singh son of Jagir Singh, caste Jat Sikh, r/o village Denoli, Tehsil Safidon, Distt. Jind. ... Appellant Versus The State of Haryana. ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. Baljinder Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Sandeep Mann, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent – State. SHAM SUNDER, J. * * * * This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, dated 04.02.03, rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-II, Jind, vide which, he convicted the accused, for the offence, punishable under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Physchotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be called as the 'Act' only), and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment, for a period of five years, and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, and, in default thereof, to further undergo rigorous Criminal Appeal No. 332-SB of 2003 2 imprisonment, for a period of two years, for having been found in possession of 35 kgs of poppy husk, without any permit or licence, now falling within the ambit of commercial quantity. 2. The facts, in brief, are that, on 13.10.01, Ganga Ram, Sub Inspector, alongwith some other Police officials, was going from village Danoli to Malikpur via metalled road and when they reached near a bridge, in the area of village Malikpur, the accused, was seen coming, on a bicycle, carrying a gunny bag, on its carrier, who on seeing the Police party, tried to slip away, but was overpowered on suspicion. On search of the gunny bag, in accordance with the provisions of law, 35 kgs of poppy husk, was recovered. Sample of 200 gms, was separated therefrom, and the remaining poppy husk, was kept, in the same bag. The sample and the bag, containing the remaining poppy husk, were converted into parcels, duly sealed, and taken into possession, vide separate recovery memo. The accused, was arrested. After the completion of investigation, he was challaned. 3. On his appearance, in the Court, the accused was supplied the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution. 4. Charge under Section 15 of the Act, was framed against the accused, which was read-over and explained to him, to which he pleaded not guilty, and claimed judicial trial. 5. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Hans Raj, Sub Inspector (PW1), Ram Phal, EHC (PW2), Mohinder Singh, Constable (PW3), Ravinder Kumar, Head Constable (PW4), Ved Parkash, Head Constable (PW5), and, Ganga Ram, Assistant Sub Criminal Appeal No. 332-SB of 2003 3 Inspector (PW6), the Investigating Officer. Thereafter, the Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State, closed the prosecution evidence. 6. The statement of the accused, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was recorded. He was put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against him, in the prosecution evidence. He pleaded false implication. It was stated by him that the prosecution witnesses, being Police officials, were interested in the success of the case, and they had deposed falsely. It was further stated by him that nothing, was recovered, from him, and he had been falsely implicated, in the instant case, due to party faction, in the village. The accused, however, did not lead any defence evidence, and closed the same. 7. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, convicted and sentenced the accused, as stated above. 8. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant. 9. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and, have gone the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 10. The Counsel for the appellant, did not challenge the conviction, recorded by the trial Court. Even otherwise, she could not successfully challenge the same. The trial Court, on due scrutiny of the evidence of Ved Parkash, Constable (PW5) and Ganga Ram, Assistant Sub Inspector (PW6), the Investigating Officer, was right in coming to the conclusion, that the same was cogent, convincing, reliable and Criminal Appeal No. 332-SB of 2003 4 trustworthy and sufficient to hold the accused guilty. These witnesses were thoroughly cross-examined, but nothing of consequence, was got elicited from their mouth, which may go to discredit their evidence. The trial Court, was, thus, right in recording conviction. The judgment of conviction, rendered by the trial Court, thus, deserves to be upheld. 11. The Counsel for the appellant, however, submitted that the sentence awarded to the appellant, be reduced suitably, as he has been facing the protracted criminal proceedings since 13.10.01, i.e. for the last more than eight years. He further submitted that during all these years, the appellant, suffered a lot of mental agony and physical pain. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, appears to be correct. The sword of damocle's, has been hanging over the head of the appellant, for the last more than eight years. In my considered opinion, he must have learnt the lesson, by now. In my considered opinion, the ends of justice, shall be met, in case, the substantive sentence, the sentence of fine and the sentence, in default of payment of fine, are suitably reduced. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, to this extent, is accepted. 12. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, is partly accepted. The judgement of conviction, rendered by the trial Court, is upheld. The order of substantive sentence is modified, in the manner, that the appellant, shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for 01 year and 09 months, instead of 05 years, awarded by the trial Court. The sentence of fine, is reduced, from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 5,000/-, and, in default thereof, the appellant, shall undergo rigorous imprisonment, for Criminal Appeal No. 332-SB of 2003 5 a period of 02 months, instead of 02 years. 13. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, is directed to comply with the judgement, in accordance with the provisions of law, keeping in view the applicability of the provisions of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, promptly, on receipt of a copy of the judgement. 21.01.2010 (SHAM SUNDER) AMODH JUDGE