Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 314 (PNJ)

Balvinder Singh v. State of Haryana

2012-02-22

RAKESH KUMAR GARG

body2012
JUDGMENT Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. - The appellant has filed the present appeal against the judgment and order dated 12.11.2011 passed by Sessions Judge, Fatehabad, whereby he was convicted under Section 15(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short "the NDPS Act") in FIR No. 101 dated 30.7.2008 registered at Police Station Jakhal and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. 2. According to the prosecution, the appellant was apprehended on 30.7.2008 and upon the search of the plastic bag being carried by him, 15 kgs. of poppy husk was recovered. 3. This appeal was admitted vide order dated 6.1.2012. Upon a prayer for suspension of sentence, notice was issued to the a State of Haryana for today. However, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and with the consent of learned counsel, the main appeal itself is taken on Board. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court. However, he has submitted that the appellant is a first offender and is the sole bread winner of his family. He has beer facing the agony of criminal prosecution for the last about four years. The contraband recovered from him does not fall within the definition of commercial quantity. Moreover, out of the sentence of one year imposed upon him, he has already undergone more than seven and a half months. Therefore, the remaining substantive sentence of imprisonment of the appellant be set aside. 5. Learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellant stating that the appellant was found in possession of poppy husk and, therefore, no leniency be shown to him in the matter of sentence. However, he has produced the custody certificate which indicates that as on 21.2.2012, the appellant had undergone an actual sentence of 7 months and 15 days. It has also been mentioned therein that there is no other criminal case pending against him. Learned State counsel however, does not dispute the fact that 1 no minimum sentence is prescribed under the provisions of the NDPS Act for violation Section 15 of the NDPS Act. 6. It has also been mentioned therein that there is no other criminal case pending against him. Learned State counsel however, does not dispute the fact that 1 no minimum sentence is prescribed under the provisions of the NDPS Act for violation Section 15 of the NDPS Act. 6. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, the Court is of the view that ends of justice would be best 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 15 of the NDPS Act is maintained and his substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced to that already undergone by him. 8. But for the modification in the quantum of sentence of imprisonment, as indicated above, the appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. Appeal dismissed.