Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1666 (PNJ)

Ram Avtar v. State of Punjab

2003-12-12

VIRENDER SINGH

body2003
JUDGMENT Virender Singh, J. - Ram Avtar son of Tula Ram has been convicted under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "the NDPS Act") and has been sentenced to undergo RI for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for one year. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, he has preferred the present appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution in short is that ruqa Ex.PF dated 5.3.2001 sent by ASI Brij Lal PW2 to the concerned police for the registration of the case on the ground that he along with other police constables was going towards village Khwaspur in a private vehicle in order to search certain suspected persons. When the police party reached near Forest Office, Surinder Kumar son of Ram Sarup had also met them and he joined the police party. When the police party reached a little ahead of Forest Office, a person (appellant) was seen coming from the opposite side carrying a gunny bag on his head. After seeing the police party, he made an attempt to move back. He was immediately apprehended. On enquiry he disclosed his name as Ram Avtar son of Tula Ram. A notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act was given to him which was reduced into writing. For the purposes of conducting the search, DSP Randhir Singh was also called at the spot and thereafter in his presence the search was conducted. 30 kgs. of poppy husk was recovered from his possession. Two samples of 250 gms. each were separated. The other legal formalities were also done at the spot. On the basis of ruqa, formal FIR Ex.PF/1 was recorded at Police Station, Sadar Ropar. 3. After completing the investigation, the present appellant was challaned in this case. He was charge-sheeted under Section 15 of the NDPS Act by the Special Court. After appreciation of the entire evidence, he now stands convicted and sentenced as indicated above. 4. I have heard Mr. Aseem Rai, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Narinder Kapur, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. With their assistance, I have also gone through the entire record minutely. 5. After appreciation of the entire evidence, he now stands convicted and sentenced as indicated above. 4. I have heard Mr. Aseem Rai, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Narinder Kapur, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. With their assistance, I have also gone through the entire record minutely. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has very fairly conceded that he does not assail the impugned judgment on merits and instead has prayed for reduction in the sentence. He has confined his arguments on the quantum of sentence only. In this regard, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the present appellant has been sentenced to undergo RI for three years and in fact, he has almost served his complete substantive sentence by now. The reason for the same is that the appellant was taken in custody on 5.3.2001. The trial was over on 23.1.2003. The appellant remained in custody throughout trial and now after the date of conviction he is in custody. This period comes to two years, ten months and some odd days. 6. Learned State counsel in fact could not refute the arguments submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant so far as quantum of sentence is concerned. 7. Concededly, the recovery in this case is 30 kgs. of poppy husk. According to 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 the this Court rendered 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. 8. The appellant has already suffered almost complete substantive sentence in this case. In my considered view, the ends of justice would be adequately met if the sentence awarded by the learned trial Court is reduced to the period already undergone. Ordered accordingly. 9. It has been brought to my notice that the present appeal was assigned through Punjab Legal Services Authority as the appellant was not in a position to engage the counsel. Keeping all facts into consideration, I feel that the ends of justice would be adequately met if the sentence of fine of Rs. 25,000/- is reduced to Rs. 2000/-. 9. It has been brought to my notice that the present appeal was assigned through Punjab Legal Services Authority as the appellant was not in a position to engage the counsel. Keeping all facts into consideration, I feel that the ends of justice would be adequately met if the sentence of fine of Rs. 25,000/- is reduced to Rs. 2000/-. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall further undergo RI for the one month. Ordered accordingly. 10. With the modification in the quantum of sentence, as referred to above, the present appeal stands dismissed. 11. All the concerned authorities be informed of this judgment without any delay. Appeal dismissed.