IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal No. 2023-SB of 2002 Date of decision: 17th April, 2009 Jawala Singh … Appellant Versus State of Haryana … Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. H.P.S. Ghumman, Advocate Amicus Curiae for the appellant. Mr. Amit Khatkar, Assistant Advocate General Haryana for the State. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Jawala Singh son of Bhajan Singh, labourer, resident of Sunam was apprehended by the police party and 25 kg of poppy husk was recovered from him. Recovery was effected on 19th November, 1996. The appellant has been sentenced by the Court of Special Judge, Panipat under Section 15 of the NDPS Act to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Nobody had appeared in this case on behalf of the appellant. Nobody had caused appearance on 25th March, 2003, 15th May, 2008, 29th May, 2008 and on April 15, 2009. Therefore, Mr.H.P.S. Ghumman was appointed as Amicus Curiae. Mr. Ghumman has stated that he has gone through the record of this case and has also perused the judgment. He has submitted that he Criminal Appeal No.2023-SB of 2002 will not be in a position to assail the conviction of the appellant, as the Court has placed implicit reliance upon the testimony of Mohinder Singh DSP PW-1 and Inspector Samundar Singh Investigating Officer as PW-4. It has further been submitted that in the present case, link evidence has been proved, as prosecution had examined PW-2 Rampal HC and had also tendered affidavit (Ex.PF) of Sushil Kumar. Counsel has stated that in the present case, recovery was effected in year 1996. The appellant has already suffered a protracted trial of about 13 years. Mr.Ghumman has further drawn my attention to order of sentence, wherein it has been noticed that the appellant has got two sons. His parents are old and he is the only bread earner of the family. It has also been stated that his wife has to deliver a child shortly. The order of sentence further notice the contention of the appellant that he is not a previous convict. Taking into consideration the antecedents, age and the fact that appellant has a large family to support and that he is not a previous convict along with the fact that appellant has suffered protracted trial, sentence awarded upon the appellant is reduced to nine months rigorous imprisonment. However, sentence of fine is maintained. With these modifications in the sentence, present appeal is disposed off. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE April 17, 2009 rps 2