Baldev Krishan vs State or Punjab

K.P.S. Sandhu, J.

The petitioner was tried, convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 11/2 years and a fine of Rs. 200, in default further rigorous imprisonment for one month, under section 27(a)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and to rigorous imprisonment for six months under section 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. Both the substantive sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. His conviction and sentence were upheld by the lower appellate Court. He came up in revision to this Court.

The allegation against the petitioner is that he had in his possession 16 types of drugs. He was keeping the same for sale without a licence.

The petitioner is a young man of 26 years of age. He is not a convict. There is no evidence that the drugs kept by him in his possession were spurious. The recovery was effected from the petitioner in the year 1980 and since then he has been undergoing the ordeal of trial. I think that special grounds exist for not awarding him the minimum sentence prescribed under the law. Consequently keeping in view the aforesaid circumstances I reduce his sentences of rigorous imprisonment for 11/2 years to six months under section 27(2)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. However, sentence under section 28 of the said Act is maintained. Both the sentences are ordered to run concurrently. The sentence of fine and of imprisonment. in lieu thereof would remain undisturbed. With this modification the revision fails and is dismissed.