Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1657 (PNJ)

Dharambir v. Union Territory, Chandigarh

2003-12-10

VIRENDER SINGH

body2003
JUDGMENT Virender Singh, J. - Dharambir, the appellant-herein stands convicted under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short to be preferred as the Act) and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. one lac, in default of payment of which to further undergo RI for two years. 2. In a nutshell the prosecution case runs thus : On 22.11.1990 SI Sukhdev Singh (PW-3) alongwith ASI Jasbir Singh, HC Balwant Singh, Constables Yogi Ram, Attar Singh and Jai Paul was present at local bus stop, Sector 25, Chandigarh. He received a secret information that Dharambir appellant was carrying charas with him and the same could be recovered, one Jaswinder Singh was joined as an independent witness with the police party and Nakabandi was laid at the spot. At 12.30 PM the appellant came from the side of Lakarwala crossing. On seeing the police party, he tried to retreat his steps but was overpowered. He was apprised of his right envisaged under Section 50 of the Act. DSP Baldev Singh (PW-4) was called at the spot and in his presence 100 grams of charas was recovered during personal search of the appellant from the right pocket of his shirt. All the legal formalities were completed at the spot. Ten grams of charas was separated as sample and was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. After receipt of the report of the Chemical Examiner (Ex.PD), the appellant was challaned to face trial. He was charged under Section 20 of the Act. 3. In order to bring home the guilt to the accused/appellant, the prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses. 4. The stand taken by the appellant was of innocence. However, he did not adduce any evident in defence. 5. After appreciating the entire evidence on record, the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant as already indicated above. 6. I have heard Mr AS Tung learned counsel for the appellant and Ms B.K. Mann, learned Senior Deputy Advocate General representing the State of Punjab. With their assistance I have also perused the entire record minutely. 7. 5. After appreciating the entire evidence on record, the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant as already indicated above. 6. I have heard Mr AS Tung learned counsel for the appellant and Ms B.K. Mann, learned Senior Deputy Advocate General representing the State of Punjab. With their assistance I have also perused the entire record minutely. 7. The only argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case to the hilt for the reason that the secret information, which was received by the Investigating Officer, has not been proved by producing the Daily Diary Report. 8. The factum of receipt of secret information already finds mention in the Rukka (Ex.PB), which forms basis of the formal FIR (Ex.PB/1). This argument is thus repelled. 9. Mr. Tung has also made an attempt to point out certain discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses. But in my view the said discrepancies are not of such significance as to shake the basic case of the prosecution. With the passage of time, certain minor discrepancies are bound to occur in the statements of the witnesses. In case they do not touch the core of the case, such discrepancies are not to be given much weightage. In my considered opinion, the prosecution has been able to prove its charge against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently the conviction as recorded by the learned trial Court is upheld. 10. On the question of quantum of sentence, Mr. Tung prays for leniency on the ground that the alleged recovery is only 100 grams of charas, which does not fall under the head "commercial quantity" as per the amended provisions of the Act and as such the appellant deserves leniency. 11. I find force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant. As per the amended provisions of the Act, as substituted by Act No. 9 of 2001, lesser sentence can be imposed if the contraband does not fall under the head "commercial quantity" and in the light of the decision of this Court in Ran Singh v. State of Haryana, 2002(3) RCC 425 the amended provisions are also applicable to the pending appeals in which the offence was committed prior to the amendment. In the instant case, the recovery was effected as far back as in the year 1990. In the instant case, the recovery was effected as far back as in the year 1990. The appellants has already suffered the rigor of protracted trial for the last more than 13 years. At the time of recovery, he was 56 years of age. He should be now 70 years. As stated by learned counsel or the appellant, the appellant remained in custody for about six months during trial and after conviction also he remained in custody for about ten months. As such, the total period undergone is 16 months. Sending him behind bars once again at this stage would not be justified. In my view the ends of justice would be adequately met if the sentence awarded by the trial Court is reduced to the period already undergone. It is ordered accordingly. The sentence of fine is also reduced to Rs. 5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall further undergo RI for three months. With the modification in quantum of sentence as indicated above, the appeal stands dismissed. Appeal dismissed.