Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 653 (HP)

Pratap Chand v. State of H. P.

2014-05-27

P.S.RANA, SANJAY KAROL

body2014
JUDGMENT Sanjay Karol, J (oral). Assailing the judgment dated 31.10.2008, passed by learned Special Judge, Fast Track, Kullu, H.P., in Sessions Trial No.50 of 2007, titled as State Versus Pratap Chand, whereby appellant stands convicted for having committed an offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as NDPS Act) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and pay fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default thereof, further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year, appellant has filed the present appeal under the provisions of Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2. The judgment stands assailed by the convict by taking several grounds in the appeal. 3. However at the time of hearing Mr. Anup Chitkara, learned counsel for the appellant, confined the challenge only on the question of period of imprisonment, which the convict has to undergo, in the event of default of payment of fine by him. According to the learned counsel, convict is a poor man and cannot deposit fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-. As such, he wants the Court to reduce the period of imprisonment from one year 4. Despite limited submission, we ourselves, in order to ascertain as to whether judgment of conviction is within the settled parameters of law or not, minutely examined the record. 5. Having perused the testimony of witnesses to the recovery of contraband substance from the conscious possession of the convict, we do not find any illegality, infirmity or error in the findings returned by the trial Court. Convict was found to be in possession of contraband substance i.e. charas weighing 4 kg and 400 grams. It was kept by the convict in a rucksack (Pithhu). Recovery was effected by Constable Pritam Singh (PW.1) and Head Constable Roshan Lal (PW.2), when they were on patrol duty. It was recovered in the night intervening 25-26.03.2007, at about 1.30 AM (midnight). The convict was informed of his statutory rights. The contraband substance was weighed; samples drawn; sealed and seized by the police officials and thereafter deposited with the MHC who sent the samples for chemical analysis to the Forensic Science Laboratory. All papers of search, seizure and recovery were prepared in accordance with the settled principles of law. Report (Ex.PK) confirmed the recovered contraband substance to be charas. 6. The contraband substance was weighed; samples drawn; sealed and seized by the police officials and thereafter deposited with the MHC who sent the samples for chemical analysis to the Forensic Science Laboratory. All papers of search, seizure and recovery were prepared in accordance with the settled principles of law. Report (Ex.PK) confirmed the recovered contraband substance to be charas. 6. We find factum of recovery also to have been brought to the notice of superior officer in accordance with law. FIR No. 158 of 2007 dated 26.03.2007 (Ex.PS) was also registered promptly at Police Station, Kullu, on the basis of Rukka (Ex.PG). Seized sample and the remaining stuff were sealed and not tampered with at all. The sealed samples were opened only in the Laboratory at the time of conducting chemical analysis. 7. As such, prosecution has been able to establish recovery of charas, from the conscious possession of the convict, beyond reasonable doubt, by leading clear, cogent, consistent and convincing piece of evidence. 8. Coming back to the sole submission made by learned counsel, we are of the considered view that the Act itself provides minimum sentence of imprisonment and fine. We cannot find any infirmity with that part of the sentence, whereby convict is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and pay fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, for having committed an offence punishable under Section 20 of the NDPS Act. But however, finding favour with the submission of the learned counsel that convict, a poor person, perhaps may not be in a position to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-, we reduce the sentence of imprisonment, which the convict is required to undergo in the event of default of payment of fine. 9. Convict is a poor person. It is his first offence. He is young in age and nothing adverse has come against him with regard to his conduct, during custody. As such, we modify the impugned judgment and direct that in the event of failure of payment of fine, as directed by the trial Court, convict shall be required to suffer simple imprisonment, of the nature so directed by the trial Court, for a period of six months instead of one year. 10. Except for the aforesaid, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment passed by the trial Court. Hence, the appeal is disposed of accordingly. 10. Except for the aforesaid, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment passed by the trial Court. Hence, the appeal is disposed of accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.