Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 3115 (PNJ)

Satnam Singh v. State Of Punjab

2010-11-19

T.P.S.MANN

body2010
Judgment JUDGEMENT T.P.S. Mann, J. 1. Aggrieved of his conviction under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotopic Substances Act and sentence of reigorous imprisonment for 3 1/2 years and fine of Rs. 500/- and in default thereof, further rigorous imprisonment for three months, as awarded by Judge, Special Court, Ludhiana on 14.3.2002, the appellant is before this Court by way of present appeal. 2. As per the case of the prosecution, the appellant was apprehended on 21.9.1998 by a police party led by Sh Gurvinder Pal Singh and the search of the Luggage Area of the scooter which he was riding led to recovery of opium weighing 400 grams. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has made an attempt to convince the Court about the false implication of the appellant. However, after going through the evidence available on the file and the impugned judgment, I find that the conviction of the appellant is well merited and does not call for any interference. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the appellant has been facing the agony of protracted criminal proceedings for the last more than 12 years. He is a poor person and has a large family consisting of three children to support. He is not a previous convict. The contraband recovered from the appellant did not fall within the definition of commercial quantity. The appellant has already served a period of about ten months out of the substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him. Under these circumstances, the remaining sentence of imprisonment of the appellant be set aside. 5. Learned State counsel has submitted that the narcotics are playing havoc with the lives of the citizens, especially young persons, and, therefore, the appellant, who was found in possession of 400 grams of opium, does not deserve any leniency in the matter of sentence. However, learned State counsel has placed on record the custody certificate as per which the appellant has already undergone an actual sentence of nine months and eleven days. 6. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, the Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by sending the appellant behind the bars, once again, for undergoing his remaining sentence of imprisonment. Ends of justice would be amply met if the substantive sentence of imprisonment of the appellant is reduced to that already undergone by him. 7. Ends of justice would be amply met if the substantive sentence of imprisonment of the appellant is reduced to that already undergone by him. 7. Resultantly, the conviction of the appellant under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act is maintained. His substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced to that already undergone by him. However, the fine of Rs. 500/- is enhanced to Rs. 5,000/-, which be deposited by him within a period of three months, failing which he shall be required to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. Appeal disposed of.