Bhura Singh vs State of Punjab

M. Jeyapaul, J.—The Appellant who stood charged with offence u/s 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985,

was convicted thereunder and was sentenced to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment and also to pay a fine of rupees one lakh and in default

to undergo further period of one year rigorous imprisonment.

The case of the prosecution in brief as unfolded by the witnesses examined on its side is that on 09.04.1998 the accused, who was coming on a

bicycle was intercepted by the police party headed by the Assistant Sub Inspector (PW3). He was found carrying one bag on the bicycle.

Suspecting that some incriminating material was in possession of the Appellant/accused, the Deputy Superintendent of Police (PW1) was informed.

As per the wish of the Appellant, in the presence of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, the bag on the carrier of the bicycle was searched. It

contained 35 kilogram of poppy husk. The samples were lifted and the same were sealed. On search of the person of the Appellant/accused, a

sum of Rs. 50/-was also recovered from him. PW3 having recovered those material objects, remanded the accused to judicial custody. The

Chemical Examiner submitted his report Ex.PG stating therein that the contents of the sample were of Chura poppy heads. PW3 completed the

investigation and submitted the final report against the Appellant/accused for an offence u/s 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances

Act, 1985.

The trial Court having gone through the evidence on record came to the decision that all the mandatory provisions of the aforesaid Act were

strictly complied with by the Investigating Officer. The trial Court having relied upon the evidence of PW1 to PW4 returned a finding that the

accused was found in possession of 35 kilogram of poppy husk.

Though the merit of the impugned judgment was challenged in the appeal preferred by the accused. The learned Counsel appearing for the

Appellant/accused would submit that the conviction rendered by the trial Court can be confirmed, but the sentence may be reduced to the period

of sentence already undergone by the accused/Appellant.

I also heard the submissions put forth by the learned Deputy Advocate General Shri T.S. Salana, appearing for the State.

On merit, it is found that the investigating officer had complied with all the mandatory provisions as contemplated under the Narcotic Drugs and

Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. PW1 to PW3 have spoken in one voice that the Appellant who was intercepted by the police party was

found in possession of one bag, which, on search was found to have contained poppy husk. The Chemical Examiner had also returned a finding

that the contents of the sample were of Chura poppy heads. It has been established beyond the reasonable doubt that the accused was found in

possession of Chura poppy heads weighing 35 kilogram. Therefore, the question of upsetting the verdict of the trial Court does not arise for

consideration.

Coming to the sentence awarded by the trial Court, it is found that there was no specification of small quantity or commercial quantity under the

old Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. The offence was committed by the accused on 09.04.1998. Even after the amendment was

introduced in 2001, only 50 kilogram and above poppy straw is classified as commercial quantity. As per the amended provisions of the Narcotic

Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the quantity of 35 kilogram of Chura poppy heads could at the best be classified as small quantity.

Therefore, I find that some leniency ought to be given to the Appellant/accused in the matter of sentence.

It is an admitted position that the Appellant/accused has already undergone 3 years 11 months and 27 days which is 3 days short of four years.

It is not the case of the State at this point of time that the Appellant/accused indulged in any similar activity after the conviction was recorded as

against him.

In view of the above, confirming the conviction rendered by the trial Court u/s 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,

1985, the sentence imposed upon the Appellant/accused is reduced to the period already undergone by him. The appeal is accordingly allowed in

part.