Darshan Singh vs State of Punjab

Rajan Gupta, J.—This is an appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16th October, 2002, delivered by Special Court, Barnala. The trial court after recording the prosecution evidence, came to the conclusion that the accused/appellant was guilty of possession of contraband (i.e. 8.5 Kgs of poppy husk). He 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 two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/-, in default whereof to further undergo RI for two months.

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 sole bread winner of his family. According to him, in the present case the quantity of poppy husk recovered from the possession of the appellant is much below the commercial quantity and out of the total awarded sentence of two years, he has undergone about 3 1/2 months. Learned counsel, therefore, prays that keeping in view the fact that he is a poor man and has to support his family and the quantity of contraband recovered from him is below the commercial quantity, the sentence be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

Learned State counsel 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 14.7.1997, a police party headed by SI Sardara Singh was present at Bus Stand Rureke Kalan in private jeep in connection with patrolling and checking of suspects. One Lal Singh son of Isher Singh was also associated with the police party. The said police party was present on the bridge of canal minor in the area of village Rureke Kalan. The accused was seen coming from village Tajoke side, carrying a gunny bag over his head, who on seeing the police tried to retreat. On suspicion, accused was nabbed who disclosed his name as Darshan Singh son of Tehal Singh. The S.I. told the accused that some narcotic substance is suspected in his bag and its search was to be conducted. He also asked the accused if he wanted to get the search conducted in the presence of some gazetted officer, the accused desired that his search may be conducted in the presence of some Gazetted Officer and as such, Shri Kamaldeep Singh, DSP, Tapa was requested to reach at the spot. DSP came at the spot in whose presence search of the accused was conducted. The search of the bag led to recovery of poppy husk. Two samples weighing 250 grams each were separated and the remaining poppy husk weighed 8 Kgs. Separate parcels of both the samples and bulk were prepared and sealed with the seal bearing impression ''SS''. The entire case property was taken into police possession. 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, 1985 charge was framed against the accused/appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

To substantiate its case against the accused/appellant the prosecution examined as many as six witnesses and submitted report of Chemical Examiner Ex. PH.

The statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein the incriminating evidence available on record was put to him. He refuted the incriminating circumstances and pleaded false implication. However, he did not produce any evidence in his defence.

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

On a perusal of the impugned judgment of the court below, 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 him. 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 poor person and main bread winner of his family.

Keeping in view facts and circumstances of the case, as also the fact that the appellant is the sole bread winner of the family, I deem it fit to reduce his substantive sentence to eight months R.I. 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.