Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2219 (PNJ)

Munshi Ram v. State of Punjab

2011-12-15

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

body2011
JUDGMENT Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. Issue notice of motion. On asking of the Court, Ms. Sonia Dhillon, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent. A copy of appeal has been supplied to her. The present appellant, as per the judgment of the trial Court, is aged about 70 years. He has filed the present appeal to assail the impugned judgment dated 2.12.2011, passed by the Judge, Special Court, Patiala, whereby he has been held guilty of offence under Section 15 of the Narcotic Substances & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), in the case arising out of FIR No. 160 dated 17.8.2007, registered at Police Station Patran. Vide a separate order of even date, the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000, in default whereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 15 days. Mr. D.R. Singla, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellant, at the outset, has submitted that he will not assail conviction of the appellant as he has nothing in his arsenal except to point out discrepancies, improvements and contradictions in the testimonies of the official witnesses. He further submits that he is convinced that the discrepancies, to be pointed out, are not such that the appellant will be entitled to acquittal. However, learned counsel has submitted that mere 10 Kgs. of poppy husk has been recovered from possession of the appellant, which is a non-commercial quantity. He further submits that the appellant, as on 6.12.2011, has undergone 21 days and about one month, as on today, out of his actual sentence of three months rigorous imprisonment. He has placed on record a custody certificate, issued by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Patiala. As per the certificate, relied upon by learned counsel, the appellant is not involved in any other case. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that indeed age, quantity recovered and the period undergone are taken by the Courts as mitigating circumstances and sentence is their discretion. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the mitigating circumstances, so divulged by the appellant, ought to be given due consideration by it. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that indeed age, quantity recovered and the period undergone are taken by the Courts as mitigating circumstances and sentence is their discretion. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the mitigating circumstances, so divulged by the appellant, ought to be given due consideration by it. Accordingly, sentence of 3 months rigorous imprisonment, awarded upon the appellant, for the offence under Section 15 of the Act, is reduced to that of 1½ month. With the modifications in the sentence, awarded upon the appellant, the present appeal is disposed of.