Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 930 (PNJ)

Kaka Singh v. State Of Punjab

2010-02-19

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

body2010
Judgment Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. 1 The present appellant was found in possession of 3.5 Kgs. of poppy husk and, therefore, was tried in case FIR No. 15 dated 4.3.2002 registered at Police Station Dhanaula, under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as" 1985 Act"). 2 The trial Court found the appellant guilty of offence under Section 15 of the 1985 Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 35,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for nine months. 3 In the present case, Rama Shankar, Assistant Sub Inspector, had sent a ruqa to Police Station Dhanaula, for registration of FIR. In the ruqa, it was stated that Rama Shankar, Assistant Sub Inspector, along with his companion police officials, was present in connection with patrol duty when he saw a person coming from the opposite side having a heavy jhola (bag) in his right arm. Seeing the police party, the said person turned aside. On suspicion, that person was stopped and apprehended. Suspecting that person carrying a contraband in the bag, an option was given to him to get himself searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. The person apprehended, reposed trust in Rama Shankar, Assistant Sub Inspector and disclosed his name as Kaka Singh son of Faquir Singh. From his search, 3.5 Kgs. of poppy husk was recovered. 4 The report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted and the appellant was charged for offence finder Section 15 of 1985 Act on the ground that on 4.3.2002 at about 5.30 P.M., in the area of Dhanaula, he was found in possession of 3.5 K.gs. of poppy husk without any valid permit or licence. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5 The prosecution examined Rama Shankar, Assistant Sub Inspector, as PW. 1. He deposed regarding search, seizure and recovery of the poppy husk. 6 PW. 2 Jaswant Singh, Head Constable, corroborated the testimony of Rama Shankar, Assistant Sub Inspector, PW.l. 7 PW.3 Tarsem Singh, Head Constable, and PW.4 Paramjit Singh, Constable, tendered their affidavits Ex.PG and Ex.PH, respectively. They were examined to prove link evidence. 1. He deposed regarding search, seizure and recovery of the poppy husk. 6 PW. 2 Jaswant Singh, Head Constable, corroborated the testimony of Rama Shankar, Assistant Sub Inspector, PW.l. 7 PW.3 Tarsem Singh, Head Constable, and PW.4 Paramjit Singh, Constable, tendered their affidavits Ex.PG and Ex.PH, respectively. They were examined to prove link evidence. 8 PW.5 Kuldip Singh, Sub Inspector, stated that on 4.3.2002, Rama Shankar, Assistant Sub Inspector, had produced two parcels weighing 250 grams each and one parcel of 3 Kgs. of poppy husk. 9 Thereafter, the prosecution closed its evidence. 10 The statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied all the incriminating evidence and pleaded false implication. 11 Ms. Gagan Geet Kaur, Advocate, appearing for the appellant, has stated that the trial Court has placed implicit reliance upon Rama Shankar, Assistant Sub Inspector, PW.l and Jaswant Singh, Head Constable, PW.2. She has nothing in her arsenal except to point out contradictions, discrepancies and improvements. She has further submitted that sentence of three and a half years awarded is highly excessive. Counsel has drawn my attention to the table under Sub Clauses vii(a) and xxiii(a) of Section 2 of the 1985 Act. In case of poppy straw, there is an entry No. 110 which states that upto 1 Kg. possession of poppy straw is defined as small quantity and upto 50 Kg., it is a noncommercial quantity. 12 In the present case, recovery was only of 3.5 Kgs. of poppy husk. Therefore, sentence awarded by the trial Court is not commensurate to the recovery effected from the appellant. It is stated that the appellant has already undergone six months and three days of his actual sentence. The trial Court has also fastened the appellant with a fine of Rs. 35,000/-. Maintaining the sentence of fine, sentence of rigorous imprisonment awarded to the appellant is reduced to already undergone. 13 With the submissions made above, present appeal is disposed of.