IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Appeal No.230-SB of 2003 Date of Decision : January 30, 2008 Tilak Raj S/o Beli Ram, ....Appellant R/o Gilayar, P.S.Banjar, Distt. Kulu (H.P.) Versus The State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr.G.S.Sawhney, Advocate, Amicus Curiae, for the appellant. Mr. Deepak Girotra, Asstt. A.G., Haryana, for the respondent. SHAM SUNDER, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 4.10.2002, and the order of sentence dated 9.10.2002, rendered by the Court of Special Judge-cum-Addl. Sessions Judge, Panipat, vide which it convicted the accused/appellant Tilak Raj, for the offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called as 'the Act' only) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1 lac, and in default of payment of the same, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another period of one year. 2. The facts, in brief, are that on 17.8.1997, Samundar Singh, SHO, alongwith Narender Kumar, Constable, and other police officials, was present in front of Bus Stand, Panipat, in connection with patrol duty, when Raj Roop S/o Wazir Singh, a public witness, met him. In the meanwhile, the accused was seen coming from Bus Stand, Panipat, having a black coloured bag, in his right hand. On seeing the police party, he tried to go inside the Bus Stand. On suspicion, he was apprehended by the Inspector, with the help of other police officials. Suspecting that the accused was having some narcotic substance in his possession, he was given an option, as to whether, he wanted to get his Crl. Appeal No.230-SB of 2003 (2) search conducted before a Magistrate, or a Gazetted Officer. The accused gave his option that his search be conducted before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. Message was sent to Partap Singh, DSP, who reached there alongwith his staff. The search of the bag, being carried by the accused, was conducted. It contained 2 Kgs. Charas. A sample of 100 grams was separated. The sample, and the remaining case property, were converted into parcels, and sealed with the seal, bearing impression 'SS'. The accused was arrested. After the completion of investigation, the accused was challaned. 3. On his appearance, in the Court of the Committing Magistrate, the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution, were supplied to the accused. After the case was received by commitment, in the Court of Sessions, charge under Section 20 of the Act, was framed against him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Naresh Kumar, MMHC (PW-1), a formal witness, Raj Singh, Sub Inspector (PW-2), another formal witness, who recorded the FIR, Partap Singh, DSP (PW-3), the recovery witness, Raj Room S/o Wazir Singh, (PW-4), independent witness, and Samundar Singh, Inspector (PW-5), the Investigating Officer. The Addl.PP for the State, tendered into evidence Ex.PF, affidavit of Naresh Kumar, Constable, Ex.PG, report of the FSL, and thereafter, he closed the prosecution evidence. 5. The statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., was recorded, and 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 his defence. 6. After hearing the Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State, the Counsel for the accused, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, convicted and sentenced the accused, as stated hereinbefore. Crl. Appeal No.230-SB of 2003 (3) 7. Feeling aggrieved, against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, rendered by the trial Court, the instant appeal, was filed by the accused/appellant. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 9. The Counsel for the appellant, did not assail the conviction, and sentence, awarded to the appellant. He only submitted that, since, the appellant had already undergone 6 years of detention, which also includes the period after his conviction, therefore, the sentence awarded to him be reduced to the period already undergone. The judgment of conviction, and the order of sentence awarded to the appellant, are based on the correct appreciation of evidence of Samunder Singh, Inspector (PW-5), the Investigating Officer, duly corroborated by the evidence of Partap Singh, DSP, a recovery witness, and Raj Roop, (PW- 3), a public witness. The link evidence is also complete. The evidence of these witnesses has been carefully reappraised by this Court, but nothing came to the fore, which may go to cast doubt on the prosecution case. Under these circumstances, it can be said that the trial Court, was right in placing reliance, on the cogent, convincing, and creditworthy evidence of these witnesses. The finding of the trial Court, holding the accused guilty, recording his conviction, and awarding him sentence, therefore, does not call for any interference. 10. Coming to the submission of the Counsel for the appellant, for reduction of sentence, awarded to the accused/appellant, by the trial Court, to the period already undergone, it may be stated here, that the appellant was found in possession of 2 Kgs. Charas, which constitutes commercial quantity. Under these circumstances, a minimum sentence of ten years, and a fine of Rs.1 lac, is provided for the commission of such an offence, under Section 20 of the Act. In this view of the matter, this Court is not competent to act against the mandate of law, by reducing the sentence of the appellant, to the period already Crl. Appeal No.230-SB of 2003 (4) undergone. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, being without merit, and legally unsustainable, is rejected. 11. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the judgment of conviction, and the order of sentence, rendered by the trial Court, are based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point. The same do not warrant any interference, and are liable to be upheld. 12. For the reasons recorded, hereinbefore, the appeal is dismissed. The judgment of conviction dated 4.10.2002, and the order of sentence dated 9.10.2002, are upheld. The accused/appellant is directed to surrender to his bail bonds to undergo the remaining part of the sentence. January 30, 2008 (SHAM SUNDER) Vimal JUDGE