Gurtej Singh vs State of Punjab

Rajan Gupta, J.—This is an appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16th November, 2010, delivered by Special Court, Mansa. The trial court after recording the prosecution evidence, came to the conclusion that the accused/Appellant was guilty of possession of contraband (i.e. 10 Kgs and 300 grams 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 nine months and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/-, in default whereof to further undergo RI for two month.

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 nine months, he has undergone 04 months and 05 days. 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 has placed on record a reply by way of affidavit dated 9th February, 2011 of the Deputy Superintendent, Central Jail, Bathinda, according to which the Appellant had undergone 04 month and 02 days of sentence as on 8.2.2011. 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 29th April, 2007 SI Major Singh along with other police officials in connection with patrolling, reached near warehouse Mansa where PW Bawa Singh met them and joined in the police party. When the said police party covered a short distance ahead of warehouse, both the accused (Appellant Gurtej Singh herein and co-accused Amar Nath) were seen while moving their hands in a plastic bag. On suspicion, accused/Appellant Gurtej Singh was apprehended on the spot, whereas accused Amar Nath managed to escape. Thereafter, SI Major Singh, checked the said bag and it was found to contain poppy husk. From the recovered poppy husk, two samples of 100 grams each were separated and converted into two separate parcels and remaining poppy husk on weighment came to 10 Kgs and 100 grams. It was also converted into a separate parcel. The entire case property was sealed. From the personal search of the accused/Appellant, currency notes of Rs. 55/-were recovered which were also taken into police possession. 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 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

To substantiate its case against the accused, the prosecution examined as many as four witnesses. The statements of accused u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded, wherein the incriminating evidence available on record was put to them. They refuted the incriminating circumstances and pleaded false implication. However, they did not produce any evidence in their defence.

On the basis of the evidence on record, the learned trial court acquitted co-accused Amar Nath. However, the accused/Appellant Gurtej Singh was held 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 and the 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 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 the period already undergone by him. The fine imposed by the trial court is, however, enhanced from Rs. 3000/- to Rs. 6000/-. Ordered accordingly.

The fine be deposited within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. However, in case fine aforesaid is not deposited within the stipulated period, 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.