Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1923 (PNJ)

Ram Pal v. State Of Haryana

2010-07-02

T.P.S.MANN

body2010
Judgment T.P.S.Mann, J. 1. The appellant was arraigned as accused under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 for being found in possession of 200 grams of charas on 11.3.2008 when he was present near temple of village Kanwari, District Hisar. 2. According to the prosecution, there was a secret information received by ASI Krishan Lal, Incharge, CIA Staff, Hansi to the effect that the appellant, who used to deal in opium, was standing near village Kanwari and if raid was conducted, he could be apprehended. On receipt of the said information, ASI Krishan Lal alongwith his fellow officials reached the temple of village Kanwari where a person was seen roaming and on seeing the police party, he turned back and started walking briskly. This aroused suspicion in the mind of ASI Krishan Lal, who after learning about his whereabouts, told him that he was suspected of carrying some narcotic substance. Accordingly, notice under Section 50 of the Act was served upon him. In reply to the same, the appellant stated that he had full faith in the Investigating Officer, who could search him. From a cloth pouch kept in the right dub of the pant of appellant, charas was recovered. Two samples of 20 grams each were separated and the residue came to be 160 grams. 3. After completion of the formalities and presentation of the challan, the appellant was charged for an offence under Section 20 of the Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. The trial Court believed the prosecution evidence and after convicting the appellant under Section 20 of the Act, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of fifteen days. 5. Aggrieved of his conviction and sentence, the appellant filed the present appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 20 of the Act. However, he has submitted that the appellant has to look after his family consisting of four children and he himself is the sole bread earner of his family. The appellant is not a previous convict. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 20 of the Act. However, he has submitted that the appellant has to look after his family consisting of four children and he himself is the sole bread earner of his family. The appellant is not a previous convict. Moreover, he has already undergone a period of four months in jail out of the sentence of one year imposed upon him. The sword of criminal prosecution has remained hanging upon the head of the appellant for the last more than two years. Therefore, the substantive sentence of the appellant be reduced to that already undergone by him. 7. Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer made on behalf of the appellant by submitting that the appellant was found in possession of 200 grams of charas without any permit or licence when he was apprehended by the police and, therefore, he does not deserve any leniency in the matter of sentence. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, the Court is of the view that the substantive sentence of imprisonment of the appellant can be reduced to that already undergone by him for the reasons that he has been facing the agony of criminal prosecution since March 2008, he is not a previous convict, he is the sole bread earner of his family consisting of four children and as per the custody certificate produced by learned State counsel in the Court today, he has already undergone an actual period of two months and sixteen days in jail as on 24.5.2010. Even thereafter he is behind the bars and, thus, he has practically undergone a period of about four months out of the sentence of one year imposed upon him. 9. Resultantly, the conviction of the appellant under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act is maintained. However, his sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year is reduced to that already undergone by him. The fine alongwith its default clause is, however, maintained. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.