Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 989 (PNJ)

Shamsher Singh Papu v. State Of Haryana

2003-07-22

K.C.GUPTA

body2003
Judgment K. C. Gupta, J. 1. This appeal has been directed by Shamsher Singh alias Papu against judgment dated 30/1/2003 and order dated 31/1/2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, whereby he was found guilty and convicted under Sec.18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Pshychotropic Substances Act.1985 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act) and sentenced vide order dated 31/1/2003 to RI for 10 years and fine of Re.1 lac: in default of. payment of fine, he was further sentenced to RI for two years and six months. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that on 30/5/2000. P. W.10 ASI Ram Niwas alongwith P. W.3 HC Jaswant Singh and other police officials was on patrol and crime checking duty near Dashmesh Hotel. Boarwala Road in the area of Hansi in gypsy. The appellant was going towards the hotel at a fast speed and was having a plastic bag in his right hand. On suspicion. he was apprehended. In the meantime. P. W.9 Virender Singh. owner of Dashmesh Hotel also reached there. P. W.10-ASI Ram Niwas served a notice Ex. PC upon the appellant and stated that he was suspected of possessing opium or some other contraband in his bag and whether he wanted to get himself searched in the presence of a yazetted Officer. The appellant submitted his reply Ex. PC 11 that he would allow the search of the bag in the presence of a gazetted officer. Accordingly, Hans Raj. Naib Tehsildar PW 4 was called to the sppt and in his presence plastic bag was checked which was found to contain opium weighing 2.5 kgs.100 grams was separated as sample. The sample and the remainder in the bag were separately sealed with the seal of RN and were taken into possession, vide seizure memo. Ex. P0 attested by the witnesses. Ruqa Ex. PF was sent to the police station through Constable Krishan Kumar for registration of the case on the basis of which formal FIR Ex. PF/1 was recorded by PW 5, Mahender Singh. ASI. He prepared rough site plan of the place of recovery Ex. PK and recorded the statements of the witnesses. Report Ex. PG was also submitted to Raj Kumar, DSP Hansi. who reached the spot and verified the facts. The case property was deposited with the MHC with seals intact. Upon receipt of the report of the Chemical Examiner and after completion of investigation. PK and recorded the statements of the witnesses. Report Ex. PG was also submitted to Raj Kumar, DSP Hansi. who reached the spot and verified the facts. The case property was deposited with the MHC with seals intact. Upon receipt of the report of the Chemical Examiner and after completion of investigation. challan was put up in the Court. 3. Having made out a prima facie case charge under Sec.18 of the Act was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. After closure of the prosecution evidence statement of the appellant was recorded under Sec.313 Cr. P. C. wherein he denied the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded false implication. However, he did not lead any defence evidence. 5. After hearing PP for the State and the defence counsel, Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar found the accused guilty and convicted him under Sec.18 of the Act vide judgment dated 31/1/2003 and sentenced, vide order dated 31/1/2003 as stated in the earlier part of the judgment. 6. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the accused has filed the present appeal. I have heard Shri Mohan Jam, counsel for the appellant, Shri Sudhir Nehra, AAG, Haryana and carefully gone through the record of the case. 7. The counsel for the appellant has not pressed the appeal on merits. He contended that the alleged recovery had taken place on 30/5/2000 i. e. more than 3 years ago and that during this period, the appellant has suffered the agony of trial. He further contended that the alleged recovery of 2.5 kgs. opium is non-commercial quantity and further the appellant is a young person of the age of 36 years and as such a lenient view may be taken against him. 8. Keeping in view the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant, I take a lenient view against the appellant and sentence him to RI for 3 years and 2 months and fine of Rs.2,000.00 in default of payment of fine, he would further suffer RI for 2 months. With the above modification in the sentence the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed with modification in sentence.