Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 853 (PNJ)

Inder Singh - v. State Of Haryana

2002-08-28

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL

body2002
Judgment Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, the Act,). The appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. one lac and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 20.1.1995, ASI Ram Niwas along with HC Dharam Pal and other police officials was present in the area of village Dharoli, when they noticed the accused, who was carrying a bag on his right shoulder. On seeing the police party the accused turned back and on suspicion, he was apprehended by the police party. He was served with a notice under Section 50 of the Act, to the effect that he could opt for being searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate and in reply thereto, he made a statement that he wanted to be searched before a Gazetted Officer. Accordingly, the accused was taken to the house of Tehsildar, Adampur and in his presence, ASI Ram Niwas searched a bag of the accused, which led to the recovery of Chura Post. On weighment, the contraband came out to be 8 Kgs. and a sample of 200 grams was separated. Both the sample parcel and the residue were sealed with seal `RNB and seal after use was handed over to HC Dharam Pal. The Tehsildar also put his seal `BBS and retained the same. The case property was taken into police possession. Rukka Ex. PE was sent to the police station, on the basis of which the FIR Ex. PE/1 was recorded. Site plan Ex. PC was prepared. The accused was arrested and the case property was deposited with the MHC. 3. In support of its case, the prosecution inter alia examined PW-3 ASI Ram Niwas, PW-2 Brij Bhushan Sharma, apart from PW-1 HC Dharam Pal, PW-4 HC Om Kumar and PW-5 constable Vijender. 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. On the basis of evidence on record, the trial Court held the case of prosecution to be proved, and convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid. 6. 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. On the basis of evidence on record, the trial Court held the case of prosecution to be proved, and convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 7. From the statement of PW-3 ASI Ram Niwas and PW-2, Brij Bhushan Sharma Tehsildar and PW-1 HC Dharam Pal, recovery from the appellant is fully proved. No contention has been urged by counsel for the appellant to show that conviction was illegal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant next contended that having regard to amendment in the Act, in the year 2001, sentence awarded may be reduced to the sentence already undergone. 9. I find merit in this contention. The amendment has been held to be applicable to pending appeals by a Division Bench of this Court and having regard to the recovery effected from the appellant, sentence already undergone by the appellant, which is said to be more than five years, in adequate. Accordingly, sentence of fine is set aside and sentence of imprisonment is reduced to that already undergone. The appeal is partly allowed. The appeal is partly allowed.