Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1427 (PNJ)

Dalip Singh v. State Of Haryana

2002-12-20

VIRENDER SINGH

body2002
Judgment Virender Singh, J. 1. Appellant Dalip Singh son of Sheetal resident of Ganni, P.S. Baijnath, District Uttranchal stands convicted by the learned Special Judge, Sonepat vide judgment dated 16.10.2002 under section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short to be referred as the Act) and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lac (one lac) and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorousimprisonment for four months. 2. In short, the case of the prosecution is that on 28.1.2001, Satbir Singh, SI/SHO alongwith other police officials was present at G.T. Road, Engineering College, T. Point in connection with Patrolling then he received a secret information that the present appellant was selling opium at his dhaba and in case a raid is conducted, he can be apprehended alongwith opium. Consequently, a raiding party was prepared and on reaching the spot, the present appellant was apprehended. The case of the prosecution further is that 200 grams opium was recovered. A sample of 10 grams of opium was taken from the recovered contraband. All the other necessary legal formalities were done at the spot and formal FIR under section 18 of the Act was registered against the present appellant on the basis of ruqa sent by Satbir Singh SI/SHO. 3. The appellant was charged under Section 18 of the Act and on a consideration of entire evidence, he stands convicted and sentenced as indicated above. Aggrieved with the impugned judgment, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. 4. I have heard Mr. Surinder Saini, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Sudhir Nehra, learned Assistant Advocate General Haryana. I have also perused the entire evidence and other relevant documents. 5. At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellant has very fairly contended that he does not press the appeal on merits and prays for the reduction of the sentence. In support of his arguments on the quantum of sentence, the learned counsel for the appellant has stated that the appellant remained in custody as an undertrial for a period of 13 months and is in custody from 16.10.2002, the date of his conviction. In support of this, he has relied upon certificate issued by the Superintendent, District Jail, Sonepat (Annexure P/1) which he has attached with the grounds of appeal. In support of this, he has relied upon certificate issued by the Superintendent, District Jail, Sonepat (Annexure P/1) which he has attached with the grounds of appeal. he then contends that the quantity of contraband allegedly recovered from the appellant does not fall under, the commercial quantity and in such eventuality, the present appellant deserves the concession of reduction of sentence in the light of new provisions of the Act as substituted by Act No. 9 of 2001. 6. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for the appellants has also relied upon judgment of this Court rendered in Criminal Appeal No. 839-SB of 2002 decided on 1.10.2002, in which the recovery of the opium was 200 grams and the substantive sentence of the appellant was reduced from ten years to six months only with a fine of Rs. 1000/-. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Nehra, learned State counsel has argued that the appellant does not deserve any concession so far as the quantum of sentence is concerned. 8. In my considered view, the appellant certainly deserves the reduction in the quantum of sentence. It appears that the sentence was imposed on the appellant on the assumption that he deserves rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rs. 1 lac, which was the minimum sentence. Now the law has undergone a change and minimum sentence which has been imposed upon the appellant would be applicable only if the recovery of opium is more than 2 kgs 500 grams. There is otherwise no dispute that the provisions of the new Act as substituted by Act No. 9 of 2001 would also be applicable to the appeals, although the alleged offences under this Act were committed prior to the amendment. (Ran Singh v. State of Haryana, 2002 (3) RCC 425 refers) 2002(4) All India Criminal Law Reporter 984 (Pb. & Hry.)]. 9. Admittedly, the alleged recovery of contraband from the appellant is 200 grams of opium and having regard to all the circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the ends of justice will be met if the sentence imposed in the appellant is reduced to six months rigorous imprisonment and sentence of fine is reduced to Rs. 1000/- In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. It is ordered accordingly. 10. 1000/- In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. It is ordered accordingly. 10. In view of above, the appeal is dismissed with the modification in the quantum of sentence as indicated above.