Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2635 (PNJ)

Sohan Singh v. State Of Haryana

2010-09-14

A.N.JINDAL

body2010
Judgment A.N.Jindal, J. 1. Accused-appellants Sohan Singh and Gurcharan Singh (herein referred as the accused) were prosecuted under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity, the Act) for keeping in their possession 40 kgs of poppy husk without any licence or permit. Consequently, vide judgment dated 5.12.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, they were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight years and to pay fine of Rs. 80,000/- each. 2. Factual matrix of the case is that on 7.6.1998, ASI Gurmit Singh along with other police officials was going from B.B.M.B. Desumalkana towards village Giana in connection with patrolling. The accused were seen coming on a scooter bearing registration No. PID 4355. They were carrying a jute bag. On suspicion they were stopped. Suspecting some contraband in their possession, they were given option if they wanted to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. However, they reposed confidence in the Investigating Officer. On search, they were found in possession of 40 kgs of poppy husk. Two samples of 200 grams each were taken out of the bulk poppy husk. The sample as well as the remaining bulk poppy husk were seized vide memo Ex.PB. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. The accused were arrested. On completion of the investigation, they were challaned. Consequently, court charged them for the offence under Section 15 of the Act but they sought to contest the charge. 3. In order to prove the charge, prosecution examined HC Kulwant Singh (PW1), SI Shubh Ram (PW2), ASI Gurmit Singh (PW3), C. Subhash Chander (PW4), C. Kanwar Singh (PW5) and SI Balwan Singh (PW6). 4. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded their false implication in the case. In defence, they examined C. Dharam Singh (DW1) and C. Raj Kumar (DW2). 5. The trial ended in conviction. 6. Arguments heard. Record perused. 7. Without assailing the judgment of conviction, it was urged that quantity of contraband recovered from the accused was non-commercial in nature, therefore, the sentence of eight years as awarded by the Special Court is highly excessive. He has further submitted that the accused Sohan Singh has undergone seven months and seventeen days and accused Gurcharan Singh has undergone eight months and fourteen days of the substantive sentence. He has further submitted that the accused Sohan Singh has undergone seven months and seventeen days and accused Gurcharan Singh has undergone eight months and fourteen days of the substantive sentence. Consequently, Mr. Manvinder Singh, Advocate for the accused has sought some leniency on the quantum of sentence. 8. Having given my thoughtful consideration to the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants and also after hearing learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, it is observed that the occurrence in this case took place on 7.6.1998 and the case was decided on 5.12.2002 i.e. after coming into force the amended Act of 2001, as such the amended provisions with regard to the punishment would be applicable to the facts of the instant case. Section 41 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances (Amendment) Act, 2001 (9 of 2001) reads as under :- "41. Application of this Act to pending cases - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section 2 of Section 1, all cases pending before the courts or under investigation at the commencement of this Act shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the principal Act as amended by this Act and accordingly, any person found guilty of any offence punishable under the principal Act, as it stood immediately before such commencement, shall be liable for a punishment which is lesser than the punishment for which he is otherwise is liable at the date of the commission of such offence. Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to cases pending in appeal. (2) For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that no act or omission on the part of any person shall be punishable as an offence which would not have been so punishable if this Act has not come into force." 9. In view of the aforesaid section it could be safely concluded that the amended act is applicable to the cases which were pending on the day the Act came into force. The Act came into force on 2.10.2001. According to the amended Act, in cases involving the recovery of non commercial quantity, lessor sentence could be awarded. 10. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed with the modification in the sentence which is reduced to one year with fine of Rs. 10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he would further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. 11. According to the amended Act, in cases involving the recovery of non commercial quantity, lessor sentence could be awarded. 10. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed with the modification in the sentence which is reduced to one year with fine of Rs. 10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he would further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. 11. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa, for compliance.