IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Appeal No.724-SB of 1999 Date of Decision : January 8, 2008 Narain S/o Sewa R/o Babulada, ....Appellant P.S.Manpur, District Mandsore Versus The State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr.Vikas Chaudhary, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Kartar Singh, AAG, Haryana, for the respondent. SHAM SUNDER, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 17.4.1999, rendered by the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Panipat, vide which it convicted the accused/appellant Narain, for the offence punishable under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substance 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. On 2.8.1996, a Police party headed by Ravinder Kumar, Inspector, and comprising Randhir Singh, Sub Inspector, Mahabir Singh, Head Constable, Balwan Singh, Head Constable and other police officials, was present near Baburpur Mandi, when the accused came there, having a cloth bag, on his shoulder. He was apprehended on suspicion. Thereafter, option was given to him, as to whether, he wanted his search to be conducted by a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. He gave the option, that he wanted his search, to be conducted, in the presence of a Gazetted Officer. The search of cloth bag, which the accused was carrying, was conducted, as a result whereof 5 Kgs and 500 grams Crl. Appeal No.724-SB of 1999 (2) opium was recovered therefrom. A sample was taken out. The remaining opium and the sample were duly sealed and taken into possession. 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 18 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 Virender Singh, ASI (PW-1), Balwan Singh, Head Constable (PW-2), Beer Singh, Constable (PW-3), Mohinder Singh, DSP (PW-4), Ilam Singh (PW-5), Randhir Singh, Constable (PW-6), Balwan Singh, Constable (PW-7), and Ravinder Kumar, Inspector (PW-8). Report Ex.PJ of the Forensic Science Labortary, was tendered into evidence, and thereafter, the prosecution evidence was closed by the PP for the State. 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. No evidence was led by him, in his defence. 6. After hearing the 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. 7. Feeling aggrieved, against the judgment of conviction, and the order of sentence, rendered by the lower 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. Crl. Appeal No.724-SB of 1999 (3) 9. The Counsel for the appellant, did not dispute, the conviction, the substantive sentence and the sentence of fine, awarded to the accused/appellant by the trial Court. The only argument advanced by him, was to the effect that the appellant, had already undergone the substantive sentence, awarded to him, and lenient view be taken, by reducing the sentence, awarded to him, in default of payment of fine. 10. The perusal of the judgment of the trial Court reveals that, it is based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and the law on the point. The recovery of 5 Kgs. 500 grams opium, was effected from the cloth bag, being carried by the accused, at the relevant time. This factum was proved, from the cogent, convincing, creditworthy and reliable evidence of Mohinder Singh, DSP (PW-4), Ravinder Kumar, Inspector, the Investigating Officer (PW-8) and Balwan Singh, Head Constable (PW-7). Even, the link evidence, in this case, was found to be complete, on the basis of the evidence of Balwan Singh, Head Constable (PW-2) and Beer Singh, Constable (PW-3), as also the report of the FSL Ex.PJ. The trial Court, thus, rightly convicted the accused. 11. Coming to the submission of the Counsel for the appellant, that since the appellant has already undergone the substantive sentence, awarded to him, by the trial Court, the sentence awarded to him, in default of payment of fine, be reduced, it may be stated here, that the same merits acceptance. The recovery, in this case, was effected on 2.8.1996, whereas, the accused was convicted on 17.4.1999. He applied for the suspension of sentence, but his prayer was not allowed. Keeping in view the circumstances of the case, and in the interest of justice, I , consider it a fit case, in which the sentence awarded to the appellant, in default of payment of fine, should be reduced, to rigorous imprisonment for 2 months, instead of rigorous imprisonment for one year. To this extent, the submission of the Counsel for the appellant is accepted. Crl. Appeal No.724-SB of 1999 (4) 12. For the reasons recorded, hereinbefore, the appeal is dismissed, with the modification that the conviction, the substantive sentence of rigorous imprisonment for ten years awarded to the accused/appellant, and the sentence of fine of Rs.1 lac imposed upon him, are maintained, whereas, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of one year, awarded to him, by the lower Court, in default of payment of fine, is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for 2 months. January 8, 2008 (SHAM SUNDER) Vimal JUDGE