Bhola Singh vs State of Punjab

K.C. Puri, J.

CRM No. 2572 of 2014

Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant has submitted that he does not press the application for suspension of sentence.

The application for suspension of sentence stands dismissed as not pressed.

Main case

Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 18.1.2014 passed by Sh. Sarbjit Singh Dhaliwal, Judge, Special Court, Sri. Muktsar Sahib vide which the accused was convicted u/s 18 of the NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two and a half years and to pay fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months.

The brief facts of the case are that on 21.5.2009 SI Jasvir Singh along with police party was going from Police Station Bariwala to Baja Marar Janguana, Lubanianwali in connection with patrolling duty. When the police party reached at canal bridge, then Shamsher Singh alias Shera son of Gurdev Singh resident of Udekaran met the police party, who was associated in the police party. Then from the side of village Lubanianwali, one silver colour motor cycle bearing No. PB-05-N-5623 was seen coming which was being driven by one Sikh gentleman. He was given an indication to stop by ASI Jasvir Singh. The motor cyclist after throwing away his motor cycle fled away from the spot. While running, he was identified by Shamsher Singh son of Gurdev Singh witness as Bhola Singh i.e. the accused appellant. He was chased by HC Manjit Singh and Sarwan Singh but the accused managed to escape. Then SHO conducted search of the motor cycle in the presence of witnesses. With the handle of the motor cycle, one plastic bag was hanging which was removed from it and was found containing opium. HC Baldev Singh made arrangement of computer scale. 10 gms opium was taken out as sample and put in a small plastic box and converted into sample parcel. The remaining opium, on weighment, came to be 990 gms which was put in another plastic box and converted into bulk parcel. Both the parcels were sealed by the IO with his seal bearing impression ''JS''. Sample seal chit was prepared. Seal after use was handed over to HC Shamsher Singh. Entire case property was taken into possession. The investigation was conducted and ultimately, challan against the accused was presented in the Court.

On presentation of challan, copies of same were supplied to the accused free of costs, as envisaged u/s 207 Cr. P.C.

Thereafter, charge under Sections 18 of NDPS Act was framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

In order to bring home the guilt of accused, the prosecution examined PW-1 HC Bashir Singh, PW-2 HC Shamsher Singh, PW-3 SI Balkar Singh, PW-4 Dr. Som Nath Singla, PW-5 HC Harvinder Singh, PW-6 SI Jasvir Singh, PW-7 Shamsher Singh, PW-8 Mulkh Raj and thereafter, closed the evidence.

The accused was examined u/s 313 Cr. P.C., wherein all the incriminating evidence was put to him, to which he pleaded innocence and false implication.

The accused was called upon to lead defence evidence but he did not lead any evidence in defence.

The learned trial Court, after appraisal of the evidence, convicted the accused u/s 18 of the NDPS Act and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment and fine as narrated above.

Feeling dissatisfied with the above said judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.1.2014 passed by Sh. Sarbjit Singh Dhaliwal, Judge, Special Court, Sri. Muktsar Sahib, the accused has preferred the present appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged the conviction but he has submitted that since the appellant has already undergone incarceration for a period of 1 year, 11 months and 15 days out of the substantive sentence of two and a half years, the sentence may kindly be reduced to the period already undergone.

Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer.

I have carefully considered the submissions of both the side and have gone through the record of the case.

So far as the conviction recorded by the trial Court is concerned, that does not call for any interference as the recovery witnesses have fully supported the case of the prosecution. There is no other lacuna in the case of the prosecution so, conviction recorded by the trial Court stands affirmed.

Now reverting to the quantum of sentence, the offence relates to about 4 years back and since then the appellant is facing protracted trial. The appellant is not a previous convict nor involved in any other case. He has already undergone incarceration for a period of 1 year, 11 months and 15 days out of the substantive sentence of two and a half years. So, the ends of justice would be met in case the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. It is ordered accordingly. However, the sentence of fine stands affirmed.

The accused is stated to be in custody. He be released forthwith in case he is not required in any other case.

With this modification, the appeal stands disposed of.

A copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned quarter for compliance.