Cr. Appeal No. 318 of 1999 1.10.2010 Present: Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, Addl. A.G. and Shri Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate General for the appellant. Convict in person. Today the accused has been produced before us in the custody of constable Prabhat Singh, No. 162, and ASI Kuldeep Kumar, Police Station Dalhousie. On the last date we had ordered as follows:- “On 20.08.2010 after convicting the convict for having committed an offence punishable under Section 20 of the NDPS Act, we had directed that his bail bonds be cancelled and he be produced before us on 9.9.2010. Today, Head Constable Shiv Lal, Police Station Dalhousie has come before us and states that the convict was not available at his home and it was reported that he was working as a driver at Darlagaht. Though efforts were made the convict could not be traced out. It is not disputed that the family of the convict including his wife and children are living in the village of the convict. It is not difficult for police officials to find out the whereabouts of the convict. We, therefore, direct that the accused be produced before us on 21.10.2010 failing which the Superintendent of Police, Chamba, H.P. shall personally appear in Court to explain why the accused could not be arrested.” This is not the first time that we had to pass an order like the one quoted here-in-above. This is probably the fifth or sixth case of this type which has come before this Bench in the last six months. It is only after we order that in case the accused is not produced on the next date the Superintendent of Police concerned shall appear before us to explain why the accused could not be arrested on the next date miraculously the accused is produced. This shows that the police personnel are not doing their duty and it is only when Court passes an order directing a Senior Official to appear that the non-bailable warrants issued by this Court are being executed. We are taking a very serious view of the matter and direct that a copy of this order be sent by the Registrar General to the Principal Secretary (Home) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh and to the Director General of Police to issue necessary directions that whenever the non-bailable warrants are issued by any Court in the State the same should be scrupulously executed. In case, in future we find instances of this nature where warrants are not executed with promptitude we will not hesitate to use our powers to take action against the concerned officials. Accused has been produced. He has been heard on the quantum of sentence. The accused has been found guilty of having committed an offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and the contraband found in his possession was 4.750 Kgs. Even if we take the resin content in the recovered stuff which was 36.59 % which amounts to 1.738 Kgs. of charas, which is a commercial quantity. The minimum sentence which can be imposed in such a case is 10 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine which is not less than 1 lakh rupees. Keeping in view the fact that the incident occurred in the year 1998 and 12 years have lapsed, we feel that the minimum sentence is one which should be imposed in the case. We, therefore, sentence the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1 lakh. On his failure to pay the aforesaid fine amount, he shall have to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year. The Registry is directed to give a certified copy of this order and the judgement dated 20th August, 2010 to the accused during the course of the day to day. The Registry is directed to also prepare the necessary warrants in this regard. ( Deepak Gupta ), J. 1st October, 2010 ( Sanjay Karol ), J. ™