IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUN`JAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No.63732 of 2011 in/and Crl. Appeal. No.2991 -SB of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 6.1.2012 Raj Kumar -----Appellant Vs. State of Haryana -----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. Animesh Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Amandeep Singh, AAG Haryana. --- RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. 1. The appellant has filed the present appeal against the judgment and order dated 17.11.2011 passed by Special Judge, Patiala, whereby he has been convicted under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short “the NDPS Act”) in FIR No.418 dated 9.9.2007 registered at Police Station Sadar Patiala and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- or to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month in default of payment of fine. 2. According to the prosecution, the appellant was apprehended on 9.9.2007. Upon the search of person of the Crl. Appeal No.2991-SB of 2011 appellant recovery of 30 grams of smack was recovered from the possession of the appellant. 3. This appeal was admitted vide order dated 22.11.2011. Upon a prayer for suspension of sentence, notice was issued to the State of Haryana 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. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court. However, he has submitted that the appellant is first offender and is the sole bread winner of his family which consists of his wife and unmarried children. He has been facing the agony of criminal prosecution for about five years. The contraband recovered from him does not fall within the definition of commercial quantity. Moreover, out of the sentence of six months imposed upon him, he has already undergone a period of more than 2 months, thus, the remaining substantive sentence of imprisonment of the appellant be set aside. 5. Learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellant stating that the appellant was found in possession of smack and, therefore, no leniency be shown to him in the matter of sentence. However, it has been mentioned therein that there is no other criminal case pending against him. Learned State counsel however, does not dispute the fact that no minimum sentence is prescribed under the provisions of the NDPS Act for violation Section 21 of the NDPS Act. 2 Crl. Appeal No.2991-SB of 2011 6. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, this 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 21 of the NDPS Act is maintained. His substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced to that already undergone by him. However, the fine of Rs.1,000/- is enhanced to Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment 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 06, 2012 ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG ) savita JUDGE 3