IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No.399 of 2009. Decided on: June 30, 2011. ____________________________________________________________ Lal Singh. ……..Appellant. Versus State of H.P. ……..Respondent. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? For the appellant : Mr. Manoj Pathak, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. A.K.Bansal, Addl. Advocate General. _________________________________________________________ SURINDER SINGH,J (oral) : Appellant was charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, in short ‘the Act’, for allegedly keeping in possession 550 grams of Charas, but as per the report of State Forensic Science Laboratory, the resin contents in the recovered stuff was found only 26.780%, which comes to 147.290 grams Charas, as such, he was convicted under Section 20 (b) (ii) (B) of the Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years and to pay a fine of `50,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he has been Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. 2. Succinctly stated, the prosecution case is that PW8 HC Pune Ram was heading a police party. They were confronted by accused coming on foot, who was carrying a plastic bag in his right hand. On seeing the police party, he tried to run back, he was over- powered on suspicion. On checking his bag, he was found in possession of 550 grams of Charas, out of which two samples of 25 grams each were separated, sealed with seal impression “H” and remaining bulk was also sealed with the same seal. NCB forms in triplicate were filled in and sample of seal was taken separately. Thereafter the accused was arrested and grounds of arrest were informed to him. Ruka was sent for the registration of the case. The accused was produced before PW10 Inspector/SHO Nathu Ram. He resealed the case property with his own seal impression “T” and deposited in the Malkhana with MHC. One of the sample parcels was sent for its analysis, through Constable PW6 Hans Raj to State Forensic Science Laboratory, Junga. The special report was sent to the officer superior within time. - 3 - 3. As per the report of analysis Ext.PX, the resin contents of the Cannabis plant to the above extent in percentage were found in the sample aforesaid and as per judgment passed by this Court in Dharam Pal v. State of H.P. [Latest HLJ 2007 (HP) 827] and Manoj Kumar v. State of H.P. [Latest HLJ 2008(HP) 1108], the accused was convicted for the intermediary quantity of Charas found in the recovered stuff in his possession and sentenced as aforesaid. 4. In appeal, learned counsel for the accused does not assail the conviction of the accused, but it is argued that keeping in view the resin contents of Cannabis plant, which falls within the definition of the Charas, the sentence imposed appears to be disproportionate and excessive. 5. Although, learned counsel for the accused did not assail the conviction of the accused, but I find that the case of the prosecution has been fully substantiated by PW8 HC Pune Ram, which is corroborated by PW1 Constable Bhoop Singh, PW2 Constable Chet Ram and PW9 Constable Raman Kumar. Though they were subjected to lengthy cross- - 4 - examination, but nothing material could be extracted from them. 6. PW8 HC Pune Ram also testified that the case property was produced before PW10 Inspector/SHO Nathu Ram, who resealed it with his own seal “T” and its facsimile was also taken on the NCB forms. Specimen of the seal was also taken separately and the case property was deposited with PW5 MHC Rajinder Singh, who entered it into the Malkhana register, the extract copy of which is Ext.PW5/A. The sample parcel was sent through Constable PW6 Hans Raj vide Road Certificate, copy of which is proved as Ext.PW5/B alongwith police docket and the NCB forms, which were deposited by him and on deposit, its receipt was produced before MHC aforesaid. They testified that so long, the case property remained in their possession, was not tampered with. 7. Perusal of the NCB forms, one of which is Ext.PW8/F shows that against the relevant column, facsimile of the seal used on the spot and also at the time of resealing was also affixed and as per the report of analysis Ext.PX, column No.7 of the report Ext.PX sample parcel was received in the Laboratory on - 5 - 2.7.2008, which contained three seal impressions of “H” and one of “T”. On analysis, it was found to be sample of Charas, which contained the 26.780% resin of the Cannabis plant. Therefore, on the basis of the aforesaid evidence, the accused stands rightly convicted by the learned trial Court and it cannot be interfered with. 8. Insofar as the sentence is concerned, as per the judgments of this Court, referred above, the quantity of Charas in the recovered stuff comes to 147.290 grams, which is more than the “small quantity” and less than “commercial quantity”. 9. The accused is not stated to have been involved in the similar offence, but however, there are three different FIRs under Sections 379 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code, registered in Police Station Manimajra (Chandigarh), out of which in one of the FIR, he stands convicted. 10. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the accused has three minor daughters and old parents to maintain. He is from a poor background and requires to be rehabilitated and further that he is in the jail from the date of arrest i.e. 29.6.2008 and has - 6 - completed three years. Therefore, the period already undergone would meet ends of justice. 11. I have considered the above arguments of the learned counsel for the accused. Keeping in view the quantity of the Charas recovered from the accused and also his antecedents, the ends of justice would be met in case his sentence of 5 years as awarded by the learned trial Court is reduced to the period already undergone without disturbing the fine but and in default of payment of fine the sentence is reduced to six months instead of one year. Thus ordered accordingly. 12. The case property of Charas be disposed of in accordance with rules framed under the Act. 13. The learned trial Court shall send the modified warrants in consonance with the judgment to the jail concerned in the above terms to the Superintendent Jail concerned. 14. The matter stands disposed of. Send down the record. June 29, 2011. (Surinder Singh), (Pds) Judge.