Bholi vs State of Punjab

Rajan Gupta, J.—This is an appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 7th March, 2011, delivered by Judge, Special Court, Patiala. The trial court after recording the prosecution evidence, came to the conclusion that the accused/Appellant was guilty of possession of contraband (i.e. 11/2 Kgs of poppy husk. She was convicted u/s 15 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to be as "NDPS Act") and sentenced to undergo RI for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default whereof to further undergo RI for fifteen days.

Feeling aggrieved against the judgment of the trial court, the Appellant has approached this Court through the instant appeal.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant states that he is limiting his prayer only to the extent of reduction in the sentence awarded and does not assail the judgment of conviction. Learned Counsel has submitted that the Appellant is a poor lady having four unmarried daughters and one unmarried son. According to him, in the present case the quantity of contraband (poppy husk) recovered from the possession of the Appellant is much below the commercial quantity and out of the total awarded sentence of three months, she had already undergone 01 month and 02 days. Learned Counsel, therefore, prays that keeping in view the fact that she has to look after her four daughters and one son and the quantity of contraband recovered from her is much below the commercial quantity, the sentence be reduced to the period already undergone by her.

Learned State counsel has placed on record a reply by way of affidavit dated 6th April, 2011 of the Superintendent, Central Jail, Patiala, according to which the Appellant had already undergone one month of sentence. He submits that in case conviction of the Appellant is maintained, the court may reduce the sentence as deemed appropriate in the circumstances of the case.

I have heard learned Counsel for both the parties.

Briefly, the prosecution case runs thus:

On 9th February, 2007, ASI Gurpartap Singh along with other police officials was patrolling in private car and proceeding towards Rohti Chhanna, Labana Karmu and Kaidpur. When they reached near T-point leading to Kacha path from Nabha, Bhadson link road, they had seen the accused (Appellant herein) carrying a plastic bag in her right hand and on seeing the police party, she immediately turned back. She was signaled to stop. Meanwhile, Balbir Singh arrived there on his scooter who was also joined in the police party. It was about 5.00 P.M. The accused was apprehended and her identity was verified. ASI Gurpartap Singh told the accused that it was suspected that she was carrying some narcotic substance in the bag. He informed the accused of her right of being searched in the presence of some gazetted officer or a Magistrate, but the accused reposed confidence in him. Her consent statement was reduced into writing. From the search of the bag, poppy husk was recovered. Two samples of 250 grams each were separated and the remaining poppy husk weighed 1 Kg. Separate parcels of both the samples and bulk were prepared and sealed with the seal bearing impression ''GPS''. The entire case property was taken into police possession and after completion of investigation and on receipt of report of chemical examiner, the accused was sent up for trial.

Finding a prima facie case u/s 15 of the NDPS Act, charge sheet was framed against the accused/Appellant to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

To substantiate its case against the accused/Appellant the prosecution examined as many as four witnesses.

The statement of accused u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded, wherein the incriminating evidence available on record was put to her. She refuted the incriminating circumstances and pleaded false implication. However, she did not produce any evidence in her defence.

On the basis of the evidence on record, the learned trial court held the Appellant guilty of the charge framed against her and sentenced her as already indicated above.

On a perusal of the impugned judgment as well as trial court record, I am of the considered view that the trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record while holding the Appellant guilty of the charge framed against her. There is no infirmity or illegality in the findings given by the court below. The conviction of the Appellant is, thus, affirmed.

Even counsel for the Appellant, during the course of argument, has not assailed the judgment of conviction. He has, however, pleaded for reduction in the quantum of sentence on the ground that the Appellant is having four unmarried daughter and one son to support.

Keeping in view facts and circumstances of the case, as also the fact that the Appellant is a poor lady having four unmarried daughters and one son to support, I deem it fit to reduce her substantive sentence to the period already undergone by her. However, the fine imposed by the trial court shall remain intact. Ordered accordingly.

The fine, if not deposited already, be deposited within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which the modification in quantum of sentence shall stand withdrawn and the Appellant shall undergo the remaining period of sentence as awarded by the trial court.

Except with the modification in the quantum of sentence and fine, as indicated hereinabove, the appeal stands dismissed.