Criminal Appeal No. 2050-SB of 2002 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal No. 2050-SB of 2002 Date of Decision: 19.01.2010 Paramjit Singh @ Pamma son of Harbans Singh son of Kartar Singh, aged 24 years, Labourer, r/o Kulgehna, P.S. Dakha, Distt. Ludhiana. ... Appellant Versus State of Punjab. ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. Y.P. Singla, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. T.S. Salana, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent – State. SHAM SUNDER, J. * * * * This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, dated 25.09.02, rendered by the Judge, Special Court, Ludhiana, 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. 5,000/-, and, in default Criminal Appeal No. 2050-SB of 2002 2 thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment, for a period of one year, for having been found in possession of 35 kgs of poppy husk, without any permit or licence, now falling within the ambit of non- commercial quantity. 2. The facts, in brief, are that, on 03.02.99, Kamikkar Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, alongwith some other Police officials, was on the patrol duty, and proceeding towards village Bhundri, from the side of village Gorsian Makhan, on the katcha passage. At about 9.20 AM, when the Police party reached fifty yards behind the bridge of canal minor, in the area of village Bhundri, the accused, was seen coming, on the southern bank thereof, carrying a bag over his head. When the accused, reached near the Police party, he was signalled to stop, whereupon, he threw the bag, from his head and tried to slip away, but was overpowered on suspicion. On search of the bag, in accordance with the provisions of law, 35 kgs of poppy husk, was recovered. Two samples of 250 gms each, were separated therefrom, and the remaining poppy husk, was kept, in the same bag. The samples 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 Criminal Appeal No. 2050-SB of 2002 3 pleaded not guilty, and claimed judicial trial. 5. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Gurcharan Singh, Sub Inspector (PW1), Joginder Singhl, Constable-II (PW2), Ashok Puri, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police (PW3), Santokh Singh, Constable-I (PW4), Kamikkar Singh, Sub Inspector (PW5), the Investigating Officer, and, Raj Singh, Constable (PW6). 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. He, however, did not lead any evidence in defence. 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 through 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, he could not successfully challenge the same. The trial Court, on due scrutiny of the evidence of Kamikkar Singh, Sub Inspector (PW5), the Investigating Officer, Ashok Puri, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police (PW3), Criminal Appeal No. 2050-SB of 2002 4 and, Santokh Singh, Constable-I (PW4), recovery witnesses, was right in coming to the conclusion, that the same was cogent, convincing, reliable and 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 03.02.99, i.e. for the last more than ten 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 ten years. In my considered opinion, he must have learnt the lesson, by now. The Counsel for the appellant, however, submitted that the appellant, has already undergone about 1 ½ years of sentence. In my considered opinion, the ends of justice, shall be met, in case, the substantive sentence is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 01 year and 04 months, instead of 05 years, awarded by the trial Court. 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 Criminal Appeal No. 2050-SB of 2002 5 upheld. The order of substantive sentence and sentence in default of fine is modified, in the manner, that the appellant, shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 01 year and 04 months, instead of 05 years, awarded by the trial Court. The sentence of fine, shall remain unaltered, but, in default thereof, is reduced to 02 months, instead of 01 year. 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. 19.01.2010 (SHAM SUNDER) AMODH JUDGE