Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1228 (PNJ)

Gurlal Singh v. State Of Punjab

2002-11-15

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL

body2002
Judgment Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. 1. Appellants Gurlal Singh and Dilbagh Singh have been convicted and sentenced under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, the Act) for allegedly being in possess of 53 Kgs. and 250 grams of poppy husk without any permit of licence on 27.8.1996. 2. The case of the prosecution is that a police party headed by SI Iqbal Singh apprehended the accused on suspicion in the area of village Rai-Ke Kalan. The accused were informed that they were to be searched, for which they had a right to get the search conducted in presence of a Gazette Officer or a Magistrate. The accused agreed for search before a Gazette Officer. Accordingly, DSP Amrik Singh was called to the spot and in his presence, the contraband in question was recovered from the three bags being carried in Canter No. RJ-31G/0064 driven by accused Gurlal Singh, while accused Dilbagh Singh was sitting on his left side. The samples were drawn; recovery memo was prepared; seal was put; information for registration of a case was sent; site plan was prepared; the accused were arrested and the case property was deposited with the MHC. On the next day, the accused and the case property were produced before the Illaqa Magistrate. After completing other legal requirements, the accused were challaned. 3. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW-2 SI Iqbal Singh, whose evidence was corroborated by PW-1 DSP Amrik Singh and other evidence led by the prosecution. 4. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied the case of the prosecution and stated that he was falsely implicated. 5. After considering the evidence on record, the trial Court held the case of the prosecution to be proved, and convicted and sentences the appellant. Hence this appeal. 6. I have perused the record of the case and heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. In view of evidence of PW-2 SI Iqbal Singh, which is fully corroborated by PW-1 DSP Amrik Singh and other evidence on record, case against the appellant is fully proved. There is no other legal infirmity in the case of the prosecution. Learned counsel for the appellants also did not challenge the conviction. Conviction of the appellants is, therefore, upheld. 8. There is no other legal infirmity in the case of the prosecution. Learned counsel for the appellants also did not challenge the conviction. Conviction of the appellants is, therefore, upheld. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the weight of the bags could not be taken into account and the net weight of the contraband recovered from the appellant should be treated to be 50 kgs. It was also submitted that there may be marginal error of weighment and having regard to more serious consequence, if weight of the contraband is more than 50 kgs, quantity marginally higher than 50 kgs should be treated to be 50 kgs. I find merit in this contention. Excluding weight of bags and giving allowance for the marginal error in weight, contraband recovered from the appellants is taken to be 50 kgs. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that once weight of contraband recovered from the appellants is taken as 50 kgs, minimum sentence is not applicable and appropriate lower sentence should be imposed. I find merit in this contention also. 10. Having regard to legislative change vide Act 9 of 2001, minimum sentence is applicable, if recovery is more than 50 kgs. Since in the present case recovery has been taken to be 50 kgs, while upholding the case of the prosecution, sentence awarded to the appellants is reduced to four years and six months each and sentence of fine is reduced to Rs. 5000/- each. In default of payment of fine, the appellants will undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months each. 11. The appeal is partly allowed in above terms.