Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 41 (PNJ)

Ajaib Singh @ Wakil Singh v. State of Haryana

2004-01-13

VIRENDER SINGH

body2004
JUDGMENT Virender Singh, J. - Ajaib Sigh alias Wakil Singh, the appellant herein, stands convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala vide impugned judgment dated 27.3.1996 under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and has been sentenced to undergo RI for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lac, in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for 2-1/2 years. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, the appellant preferred the present appeal. 2. Since learned counsel for the appellant has not assailed the impugned judgment on merits and has confined his arguments with regard to quantum of sentence only, there is no need to enter into detailed discussion on facts. 3. However, in short, the prosecution case is that on 18.8.1993, the appellant was apprehended by the police team headed by ASI Fateh Singh and 1 kg. and 100 grams of opium was recovered from his possession as he was carrying the same in a bag. After completion of the investigation, he was challaned in this case. 4. After recording the entire evidence, the appellant stands convicted and sentenced under Section 18 of the Act as indicated above. 5. Although the impugned judgment has not been assailed no merits yet I have gone through the entire evidence with the assistance of both the counsel and am of the view that the prosecution has been able to bring home guilt to the accused. His conviction is thus confirmed. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant otherwise submits that the appellant has already undergone six years and few odd days by now. This period is inclusive of two months and few days as under-trial. Learned counsel has produced a certificate issued by the jail authorities and the same is taken on record. Learned counsel then contends that the appellant earned conviction on 27.3.1996 and his substantive sentence was suspended by this Court on 7.5.2002. Learned counsel then contends that as per the amended provisions, the appellant deserves reduction in the quantum of sentence. 7. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the appellant relies upon a judgment of this Court rendered in Vir Bhan v. State of Haryana, 2003(1) RCR(Crl.) 327 (P&H) : Criminal Appeal No. 437-SB of 1995 in which 1.500 grams (1.500 kgs. 7. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the appellant relies upon a judgment of this Court rendered in Vir Bhan v. State of Haryana, 2003(1) RCR(Crl.) 327 (P&H) : Criminal Appeal No. 437-SB of 1995 in which 1.500 grams (1.500 kgs. ?) of opium was recovered from the appellant/accused and confirming the conviction, the sentence was reduced from 10 years to 3 years and the sentence of fine was also reduced from Rs. 1 lac to Rs. 3,000/-. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant are otherwise refuted by the learned State counsel. 8. After hearing the rival contentions of both the sides on the point of quantum of sentence, I am of the considered view that the appellant certainly deserves the reduction in the quantum of sentence. It appears that he sentence was imposed upon the appellant on the assumption that he deserves rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rs. 1 lac which was the minimum sentence. Now, the law has undergone a change and the minimum sentence which has to be imposed upon the appellant in the case of recovery of opium would be applicable only if the recovery of opium is more than 2 kg and 500 grams. There is otherwise no dispute that the provisions of new Act as substituted by Act No. 9 of 2001 would also be applicable to the appeals although the alleged offences under this Act were committed prior to the amendment. [Ram Singh v. State of Haryana, 2002(3) RCR(Crl.) 728 (P&H) ]. 9. Admittedly, the alleged recovery of the contraband in the instant case from the appellant is of 1 kg. and 100 grams of opium. It falls under the head non-commercial quantity. As stated above, the appellant has already undergone six years and few days. In Bir Bhans case (supra), the recovery was 1 kg and 500 grams and the sentence was reduced to three years from ten years. 10. Keeping, in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, the ends of justice would be adequately met if the sentence imposed upon the appellant is reduced to three years from ten years. Sentence of fine is also reduced from Rs. 1 lac to Rs. 3,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall further undergo RI for one year. Ordered accordingly. Sentence of fine is also reduced from Rs. 1 lac to Rs. 3,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall further undergo RI for one year. Ordered accordingly. With the modification in the quantum of sentence as indicated above, the present appeal stands dismissed. Office is directed to inform the concerned quarters. Appeal dismissed.