Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1359 (PNJ)

Kala Singh v. State of Haryana

2012-10-02

PARAMJEET SINGH

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Paramjeet Singh, J.: - The present criminal appeal has been preferred by Kala Singh, who was named as an accused in case FIR No.317 dated 28.10.1999, registered at Police Station Ratia, under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the “NDPS Act”). The learned Trial Court vide the impugned judgment dated 12.03.2003 found the appellant guilty of offence under Section 15(b) of NDPS Act and vide the order dated 13.03.2003, sentenced him to undergo RI for 1-1/2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.8000/-, in default whereof, he was to undergo further RI for four months. 2. In the present appeal, challenge is to conviction pronounced and sentence awarded by the learned Trial Court upon the appellant – Kala Singh. 3. I need not dilate upon the facts of this case in detail as the same have already been recapitulated in the judgment of the learned Trial Court and in view of the ultimate prayer of the appellant seeking reduction in sentence. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. On being confronted with the quality of evidence available on the record, which is cogent and convincing and leads to no other conclusion but the conviction of the appellant, learned counsel for the appellant submits that he will not be able to successfully challenge the conviction of the appellant. However, he prays that the sentence of the appellant be suitably reduced as this criminal trial is hanging on his head like Damocle’s sword for the last about thirteen years and it should be a sufficient mitigating circumstance to treat him leniently. Counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the FIR pertains to the year 1999 and since then a period of about thirteen years has elapsed. The appellant has suffered the ordeal for a long period. 6. As per the custody certificate, appellant has already undergone 04 months and 14 days. 7. In view of the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant, which have been noticed above, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose will be served by sending the appellant behind the bars for serving remaining sentence at this point of time. 7. In view of the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant, which have been noticed above, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose will be served by sending the appellant behind the bars for serving remaining sentence at this point of time. There is nothing brought on record or shown at the time of argument by the State that the appellant has indulged in any other such like case. It is a fit case wherein the sentence awarded to the appellant can be reduced to the period already undergone. Ordered accordingly. However, sentence of fine and default clause shall remain intact. 8. With the observations made above, present appeal is disposed of.