Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2487 (PNJ)

Bira Singh v. State Of Punjab

2010-08-30

SABINA

body2010
Judgment Sabina, J. 1. Accused-Bira Singh was convicted for an offence under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (`the Act for short) vide judgment dated 20.9.2002 passed by the Judge Special Court, Bathinda. Vide order of even date, accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-. Hence, the present appeal by the appellant-accused. 2. The case of the prosecution, as noticed by the trial Court in para 1 of its judgment, is reproduced here in below :- "1. Briefly stated the case of prosecution is that on 11.1.1999 ASI Amarjit Singh along with constable Jaswinder Singh and other police officials were proceedings towards V. Phul Mehraj in private jeep in connection with patrolling. When the Police party reached near TPD Malwa College, Phul Beera Singh son of Sucha Singh r/o Phul met the police party and he was associated in the party. When the police party reached near the canal bridge in the revenue limits of V. Mehraj the accused was seen coming carrying a plastic bag on his head. On the basis of suspicion the accused was apprehended after stopping the vehicle. IO having suspicion of some contraband in the bag asked the accused for search and apprised him of his right of search before the gazetted officer or Magistrate and the accused consented for his search before the gazetted officer or Magistrate and the accused consented for his search before the gazetted officer. Consent memo Ex. PL was prepared which was thumb marked by accused and attested by PWs, Then on the wireless message sent DSP Sohan Singh reached the spot and he introduced himself to the accused. DSP also offered the accused of his right of search before any other gazetted officer or Magistrate and memo Ex. PA in this respect was prepared and the accused consented for his search before the DSP Sohan Singh. Memo Ex. PA was thumb marked by accused and attested by PWs. Then on the direction of DSP, IO searched the bag of accused which resulted into recovery of poppy husk. 250 grams of poppy husk was taken out as sample and the remaining poppy husk on weighment came to 7 Kgs. 750 grams. Sample seal was separately prepared. Both the sealed parcels and sample seal were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PC attested by PWs. 250 grams of poppy husk was taken out as sample and the remaining poppy husk on weighment came to 7 Kgs. 750 grams. Sample seal was separately prepared. Both the sealed parcels and sample seal were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PC attested by PWs. Before taking into possession both the parcels and remaining poppy husk were sealed by the IO with his seal As and also prepared the sample seal Ex. P2. Personal search memo Ex. PD was also prepared which was thumb marked by accused and attested by PWs. Ruqa Ex. PM was sent to the police station, on the basis of which formal FIR Ex. PM/1 were recorded by Surinder Singh MHC." 3. Learned counsel for the appellant, during the course of arguments, has not challenged the conviction of the appellant under Section 15 of the Act but has submitted that the sentence qua imprisonment of the appellant may be reduced to already undergone by him. Learned counsel has also submitted that as per the prosecution case, 8 kilograms of poppy husk was recovered from the possession of the appellant. Now, the appellant has undergone about two months of actual sentence. Appellant is the only bread earner of the family and is facing criminal proceedings since the year 1999 and is not involved in any other criminal case. 4. As per the custody certificate of the appellant placed on record by the learned State counsel, appellant has undergone 1 month and 26 days of actual sentence out of one years rigorous imprisonment. 5. Accordingly, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be just and expedient to reduce the sentence qua imprisonment to already undergone by the appellant. 6. Hence, the conviction of the appellant under Section 15 of the Act is maintained. However, the sentence qua the imprisonment of the appellant is reduced to already undergone by him. Fine, as imposed by the trial Court, if not already deposited, be deposited by the appellant within two months from today failing which the appeal shall stand dismissed. Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.