-1- Criminal Appeal No.995-SB of 2005. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Appeal No.995-SB of 2005. Date of Decision: May 7, 2010. Manjeet Singh ...Appellant VERSUS State of Haryana ...Respondent 1. Whether the Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. Present: Mr. Rakesh Nagpal, Advocate, for the appellant. Ms. Sushma Chopra, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. Impugned in this appeal is the judgment of conviction dated and the sentence order dated 13.05.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, whereby appellant Manjeet Singh was convicted under Section 15 of the of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as -2- Criminal Appeal No.995-SB of 2005. `the Act') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years and to pay fine of Rs.60,000/- in default whereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year. Co-accused of appellant, namely. Balbir Singh and Satnam Singh alias Satta were acquitted of the charge framed against them by the trial Court. The facts of the prosecution case, in brief, are that on 22.06.2003, Assistant Sub Inspector Som Nath, Police Station Sadar, Sirsa along with some police officials was present at Sirsa-Rania road on the T.Point of village Salarpur. In the meantime, the accused persons were seen coming towards that side riding a scooter bearing registration No. HR-24-C-0902 from the side Bhambhoor. Assistant Sub Inspector Som Nath gave signal to the driver to stop his scooter. The driver could not maintain the balance of his scooter and the occupants of the scooter fell down. Acquitted-accused Balbir Singh and Satnam Singh alias Satta managed to flee from the spot. The police party chased them but sthey could not be apprehended. However, accused-appellant Manjeet Singh was apprehended by the police at the spot. Two plastic bags were found tied to the scooter. Assistant Sub Inspector Som Nath, suspecting that there was some contraband in the said plastic bags and intending to search the bags, served a notice under Section 50 of the Act upon accused-appellant Manjeet Singh apprising him of his right being searched in the presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted officer. The accused reposed faith in the Investigating Officer. Consent memo of the accused in this regard was prepared. Thereafter, the said -3- Criminal Appeal No.995-SB of 2005. plastic bags were searched by the police party. One bag was found to contain 20 kgs 100 gms of poppy-straw whereas the other bag was found to contain 12 kgs 100 gms of poppy straw inclusive of weight of bags. Two samples of 100 grams each were separated from each bag. The samples and the poppy straw contained in the plastic bags were taken into possession by the police after sealing them. Ruqa was sent to the Police Station and on its basis formal First Information Report was registered against the accused. Rough site plan of the place of recovery was prepared. The accused-appellant was arrested after preparing the grounds of arrest. During investigation, accused Balbir Singh and Satnam Singh (since acquitted) were also arrested by the police. After receipt of the report of the Chemical Examiner and on completion of the investigation, challan against the accused was put in Court. After recording the prosecution evidence, statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid. Arguments of Rakesh Nagpal, Advocate, apppearing on behalf of the appellant and of Ms. Sushma Chopra, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, appearing on behalf of the State have been heard and the record perused. Learned counsel for the appellant, after arguing the matter for some time and comprehending that the case against the appellant stood proved, did not challenge the conviction of -4- Criminal Appeal No.995-SB of 2005. the appellant for the aforesaid offence. He, however, submitted that lenient view in the matter of sentence may be taken as the appellant was found in possession of non-commercial quantity of poppy straw. In this case, 32 Kgs and 200 gms of poppy straw, including the weight of two plastic bags, was recovered from the appellant and he has undergone more than one year and ten months of actual sentence. The occurrence relates to June, 2003 and the Sword of Damocles has remained hanging over the head of the appellant for about seven years. Under the circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that no useful purpose will be served in sending the appellant to jail again and ends of justice will be adequately met with if the sentence of rigorous imprisonment awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him and the sentence of fine is reduced to Rs.5,000/-. I order accordingly. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. While maintaining the conviction of the appellant for the aforesaid offence, the impugned sentence order stands modified to the extent indicated above. With the above modification in the sentence order, this appeal is hereby dismissed. May 7, 2010. ( MOHINDER PAL ) G.Arora JUDGE