Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 103 (PNJ)

Amarjit Singh v. State (U. T. ) Chandigarh

2004-01-29

VIRENDER SINGH

body2004
JUDGMENT Virender Singh, J. - This appeal was admitted on December 16, 2002. The trial Court record was also ordered to be summoned as the present appeal was to be heard finally. Since the appeal could not be heard, the appellant moved an application for suspension of sentence. Vide order dated October 16, 2003, the appeal was directed to be listed for hearing on January 27, 2004. It could not be heard even on that day because of heavy pendency. Therefore, I am disposing of the same today. 2. Amarjit Singh, the appellant-herein stands convicted by the Judge, Special Court, Chandigarh vide judgment dated September 16/17, 2002 under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short to be referred to as the Act) and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/-, in default of payment of which to further undergo RI for six months. Aggrieved by the judgment of his conviction and sentence, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. 3. On 23.7.2001, 16 Kilograms of crushed poppy husk was allegedly recovered from the possession of the appellant by the police party headed by HC Satish kumar (PW-8) for which he did not possess any permit or licence. After completion of investigation the appellant was challaned to face trial. He was charged under Section 15 of the Act and after examining the entire evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced him as indicated above. 4. I have heard Mr. Pawan Girdhar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. R.K. Handa, Standing Counsel for Union Territory, Chandigarh. 5. Mr. Girdhar at the very outset submits that he does not assail the impugned judgment of conviction on merits but prays for reduction in the sentence. 6. Though the impugned judgment of conviction has not been assailed by Mr. Girdhar, yet I have myself minutely perused the entire evidence on record and am of the view that the appellant has been rightly convicted of the charge framed against him. His conviction under section 15 of the Act is affirmed. 7. On the question of quantum of sentence, Mr. Girdhar, yet I have myself minutely perused the entire evidence on record and am of the view that the appellant has been rightly convicted of the charge framed against him. His conviction under section 15 of the Act is affirmed. 7. On the question of quantum of sentence, Mr. Girdhar contends that since the alleged recovery of contraband was 16 Kgs only, it falls under the head "Non- Commercial Quantity", the appellant has been sentenced to undergo RI for three years only, out of which he has already undergone two years, six months and seven days as he is in custody since the date of recovery, i.e., 23.7.2001. He then contends that even the fine imposed upon the appellant is on excessive side. In support of his case, Mr. Girdhar relies upon another decision of this Court in Chaman Lal v. State of Haryana, Criminal Appeal No. 226-SB of 1996, decided on 10.9.2003, in which case the recovery was 14 Kgs of poppy husk and the sentence was reduced to about 5-6 months and the sentence of fine was reduced to Rs. 1000/-. 8. The learned State counsel refutes the arguments advanced by Mr. Girdhar and contends that the appellant does not deserve any leniency on the quantum of sentence. 9. After hearing the rival contentions of both the sides, I find force in the submissions made by Mr. Girdhar. Admittedly, the recovery of contraband in the present case is 16 Kgs of crushed poppy husk, which does not fall within the head "Commercial Quantity". The appellant has already faced the agony of protracted trial for the last more than 8 years. The appellant has by now undergone 2 years, 6 months and 7 days of sentence and as such has nearly covered the entire period of his substantive sentence. 10. In my considered view, the ends of justice would adequately be met if the period of sentence awarded by the trial Court is reduced from three years RI to two years RI and the sentence of fine is reduced from Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 2000/-, in default of payment of which he shall have to undergo further RI for six months. It is ordered accordingly. With the modification in quantum of sentence as indicated above, the appeal stands dismissed. The appellant is in custody. Intimation of this judgment be at once sent to the quarter concerned for necessary compliance. 20,000/- to Rs. 2000/-, in default of payment of which he shall have to undergo further RI for six months. It is ordered accordingly. With the modification in quantum of sentence as indicated above, the appeal stands dismissed. The appellant is in custody. Intimation of this judgment be at once sent to the quarter concerned for necessary compliance. Appeal dismissed.