THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. Nos.66659-60 of 2011 in/and Crl. Appeal. No.3149 -SB of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 9.1.2012 Kuldip Singh -----Appellant Vs. State of Punjab -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present:- Mr. Ajay Singla, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. D.S. Mann, AAG, Punjab. --- RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. 1. The appellant has filed the instant appeal against the judgment and order dated 14.7.2011 passed by Special Judge, Hoshiarpur, whereby he was convicted under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short “the NDPS Act”) in FIR No.116 dated 17.8.2007 registered at Police Station Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. Crl. Appeal No.3149-SB of 2011 2. This appeal was admitted vide order dated 6.12.2011. Upon a prayer for suspension of sentence, notice was issued to the State of Punjab for today. However, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and with the consent of learned counsel, the main appeal itself is taken on Board. 3. According to the case of the prosecution, the appellant was apprehended on 17.8.2007 and upon the search of the vehicle being driven by the appellant, poppy husk weighing 9 kgs. wrapped in a bag was recovered from the tool box of the vehicle. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged the order of conviction and has argued only to the extent of reducing the sentence of the appellant, stating that the appellant is a poor person and sole bread winner of his family consisting of three daughters and one son along with widow mother of 95 years of age. He is a first offender and has been facing the agony of criminal prosecution for the last more than four years. The contraband recovered from him does not fall within the definition of commercial quantity. Moreover, out of the sentence of one year imposed upon him, he has already undergone a period of about seven months. Therefore, the remaining substantive sentence of imprisonment of the appellant be set aside. 5. Though learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellant, however, it could not be disputed by him that the appellant has undergone more than half of the sentence awarded to him. Learned State counsel also does not dispute the fact that no minimum sentence is 2 Crl. Appeal No.3149-SB of 2011 prescribed under the provisions of the NDPS Act for violation of provisions of Section 15 of the NDPS Act. 6. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, the Court is of the view that ends of justice would be best met if the substantive sentence of imprisonment of the appellant is reduced to that already undergone by him. At the same time, the fine imposed upon the appellant by the trial Court can be suitably enhanced. 7. Resultantly, the conviction of the appellant under Section 15 of the NDPS Act is maintained. His substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced to that already undergone by him. However, the fine of Rs.5,000/- is enhanced to Rs. 8,000/- and in default of the same, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment as per the impugned judgment. 8. But for the modification in the quantum of sentence of imprisonment and fine, as indicated above, the appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. January 09, 2012 ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG ) ak JUDGE 3