Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

2015 DIGILAW 1092 (SC)

Deen Mohd. v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2015-08-26

AMITAVA ROY, H.L.DATTU, V.GOPALA GOWDA

body2015
ORDER : Leave granted. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in Criminal Appeal No. 596 of 2003, dated 22.5.2007. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence awarded by the Trial Court in Sessions Trial No.28 of 2002, dated 31.10.2003, whereby the Trial Court has convicted the appellant under Section 20(C) of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, "the Act") and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years along with a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months. 3. The facts in brief are: on 15.03.2002, a Maruti Van was intercepted at Vrindraban forest barrier in Mandi District by a Police Party. A polythene bag containing Charas was recovered from the car. The said bag was found to weigh two kilograms. Two samples weighing 25 grams each were separated, of which one sample was sent to the Chemical Examiner. The report of the Chemical Examiner recorded that the sample contained resin to the extent of 24.07 percent and confirmed the sample contents of Charas in the sample. The Trial Court on being satisfied that a prima facie case exists against the appellant, charged him for the offence under Section 20 read with Section 34 of the Act. The appellant pleaded not guilty and the case was committed to Trial. 4. The prosecution examined eleven witnesses. Upon marshaling the evidence on record and analysis of the submissions made by the parties, the Trial Court reached the conclusion that the appellant was guilty and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years along with a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months. 5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of the Trial Court, the appellant had preferred an appeal before the High Court. The High Court has confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence imposed by the Trial Court. 5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of the Trial Court, the appellant had preferred an appeal before the High Court. The High Court has confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence imposed by the Trial Court. The High Court has set aside the sentence awarded by the Trial Court under Section 20 (C) of the Act, and sentenced the appellant under Section 20(B) of the Act to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years along with a fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months. 6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, the appellant is before us in this appeal. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the appellant has completed four years of the actual sentence imposed by the High Court. It is also brought to our notice that the incident had taken place more than a decade back, in the year 2002. He further submits that the appellant is not keeping good health. 8. Keeping in view the facts of the present case and all other factors into consideration, we are of the considered view that the ends of justice would be met, if we modify the sentence imposed on the appellant by reducing it to the period already undergone. 9. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the appellant, we modify the sentence awarded by the High Court to the period already undergone. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. 10. We are informed that the appellant is already on bail. In view of aforesaid, the bail bond of the appellant now stands cancelled. Ordered accordingly.