Geeta vs State of Haryana

Rajan Gupta, J.—This is an appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31st October, 2008, delivered by Special Court, Jind. The trial court after recording the prosecution evidence, came to the conclusion that the accused/Appellant was guilty of possession of contraband (i.e. 800 grams of Charas). She was convicted u/s 20 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to be as "NDPS Act") and sentenced to undergo RI for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 15000/-, in default whereof to further undergo RI for three 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 a poor lady and having minor children and there is no one in the family to look after them. Her husband has eloped with some other lady. According to him, in the present case the quantity of contraband (Charas) recovered from the possession of the Appellant is much below the commercial quantity and out of the total awarded sentence of four years, by now she has undergone 02 years 09 months and 06 days. Learned Counsel, therefore, prays that keeping in view the fact that she is a poor lady and has to support her children and the quantity of contraband recovered from her is 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 of the Superintendent, B.I. & J. Jail, Hisar, according to which the Appellant had undergone 02 years 09 months and 04 days of sentence as on 8.1.2011. 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 5th April, 2008, ASI Tek Ram along with the police officials was present near Apollo Road, Jind for patrolling and crime checking. A lady having a child in her lap was seen coming from railway station side who on seeing the police party turned back. On suspicion, she was overpowered. On interrogation she told her name as Geeta (Appellant herein). A written notice u/s 50 of the NDPS Act was served upon her. In reply to the said notice she desired to call some gazetted officer or Magistrate at the spot to carry out the search. Shri Vijender Singh Rana, Tehsildar was called at the spot. On his direction, the polythene bag which the accused/Appellant was carrying, was checked and Charas was found in that bag. Two samples of 50 grams each were separated and the residue weighed 700 grams. The packets of the sample and the residue were sealed with seal bearing impression ''VS''. The Tehsildar had kept his seal with him. 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, 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 nine 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, the accused/Appellant led no 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 poor lady and main bread winner of her children.

Keeping in view facts and circumstances of the case, as also the fact that the Appellant is a poor lady and sole bread winner of her children, 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.

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