Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1421 (PNJ)

Lachhman Singh v. State Of Punjab

2003-10-15

V.M.JAIN

body2003
Judgment V. M. Jam, J. 1. (Oral) This appeal has been filed by accused appellant Lachhman Singh, against the judgment and order dated 10/4/1997, passed by the Sessions Judge, Sangrur convicting the accused appellant under Sec.15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and sentencing him to undergo RI for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.1 lac and in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for one year. 2. Learned counsel for the accused appellant has submitted before me that he is not challenging the conviction of the accused appellant for the offence under Sec.15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and has submitted that he will argue only on the question of sentence. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record, in my opinion, the learned counsel for the accused appellant has rightly not challenged the conviction of the accused appellant under Sec.15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, in view of the statements of PW3 Harmel Singh, Investigating Officer and PW 5 HC Gurpal Singh. Both these witnesses had fully supported the case of the prosecution with regard to the recovery of 10 Kilograms of poppy husk from the possession of the accused appellant on 19.12.1993 without any licence etc. Accordingly, I uphold the conviction of the accused appellant under Sec.15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. 4. Coming on the question of sentence, the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act have been amended by Act No.9 of 2001 w. e. f.2.10.2001. As per the amended provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, small quantity of poppy husk (poppy straw) has been defined upto 1000 grams i. e. one kilogram while 50 kilograms upwards has been defined as commercial quantity. The case of the appellant would fall in the third category i. e. the quantity less than commercial quantity but greater than the small quantity, inasmuch as 10 kilograms of poppy husk was recovered from the possession of the accused appellant. As per the amended provision of Sec.15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, the maximum punishment provided for such cases is RI for 10 years and fine which may extend to Rs.1 lac. As per the amended provision of Sec.15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, the maximum punishment provided for such cases is RI for 10 years and fine which may extend to Rs.1 lac. As per Sec.41 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Amendment Act, 2001 (Act No.9 of 2001), the amended provisions of 2001 Act shall not apply to cases pending in appeals. However, a Division Bench of this Court in Ram Singh V/s. State of Haryana, has held the proviso to sub-section (1) of the Sec.41 of Act No.9 of 2001, as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, being a classification without any reasonable nexus with the object to be achieved. Consequently, it was held that Act No.9 of 2001 shall be applicable to all cases pending before the courts or under investigation at the commencement of the said Act and shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the principal of the fact whether such cases are pending in appeal or before the trial court. 5. In view of the above law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court even the amended provisions of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, as amended by Act No.9 of 2001, would apply to pending appeals. Thus, in the present case the amended provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, would apply. Applying the amended provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act to the present case, the maximum punishment provided in the present case is 10 years RI and fine which may extend to Rs.1 lac. There is no minimum sentence provided for such cases under the amended provisions of Sec.15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. The learned counsel for the accused appellant has submitted that the accused appellant has already undergone more than 5-1/2 years of sentence, inasmuch he was convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Sangrur on 10/4/1997 and was ordered to be released on bail by this Court vide order dated 10/2/2003 and in this manner he has undergone more than 5 years and 10 months after his conviction. Taking into consideration the facts and circum-stances of the present case, in my opinion, the ends of the justice would be fully met in case the substantive sentence awarded to the accused appellant is reduced to the period already under-gone by him. Taking into consideration the facts and circum-stances of the present case, in my opinion, the ends of the justice would be fully met in case the substantive sentence awarded to the accused appellant is reduced to the period already under-gone by him. Besides that, it is also a fit case where accused appellant be imposed some fine, instead of the fine of Rs.1 lac already imposed upon him. 6. For the reasons recorded above, the present appeal is partly allowed and while maintaining his conviction for the offence under Sec.15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, the substantive sentence awarded to the accused appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him. Further, the amount of fine is reduced from Rs.1 lac to Rs.2,000.00. Appeal allowed partly.