Jagdish Singh Bisht vs State Of Uttaranchal

N.S. Dhanik, J

This criminal appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 26.02.2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/A.D.J. (II Fast Track Court), Nainital in Special Sessions Trial No. 63 of 1998, "State vs. Jagdish Singh Bisht", under Section 20 of NDPS Act, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 20 (b) (II) (B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS) and sentenced to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-.

Brief facts of the case are that, the informant lodged an FIR alleging therein that on 04.10.1997 at about 2 p.m. he along with other police officials were on patrolling and when they are going to Devalchod after patrolling in Rampur Road to New ITI and through the Kaccha road to the Grain Mill, they have seen that a sky blue color maruti car, in which black glasses have been installed. When the car reached near them, the police party stopped the car. Only the driver was inside the car. On asking from him, he told his name Jagdish Singh Bisht. The police party had a non-bailable warrant against the same person in another case no. 50 of 1995. The accused has put a plastic bag on his lap. Upon asking what is in the plastic bag and papers of the vehicle, the accused told that he is carrying charas in the bag and he is not having any paper of the vehicle and the driving licence. No number plate was installed in the front of the car. The accused has been asked whether he want to make his search before the gazetted officer or before the Magistrate, the accused has stated that when he has been caught by them, so please they make his search. Then the plastic bag has been opened, one kilogram charas has been found in a bluish color bag from his, which has been sniffed by the police party and found that it is the smell of charas. Then the accused has been arrested and the recovered contraband has been put in the same polythene and seal has been installed in it.

After investigation, the Investigating Officer filed a charge sheet against the accused appellant. Based on the same, charges were framed and the Court below has convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 20 (b) (II) (B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.

Learned counsel for the appellant does not press this appeal on merits. He submits his arguments only on the quantum of sentence. Since the appellant's counsel does not challenge the conviction, this Court need not go into the merits of the case and, accordingly, the conviction under Section 20 (b) (II) (B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act is maintained.

Learned State Counsel fairly concedes that appellant has served about seven months twelve days in the jail.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is poor person and the occurrence relates back to the year1997. He submits that the appellant has already served about seven months twelve days in the jail and prays that the substantive sentence, awarded to the appellant, may be reduced to the period already undergone by them.

Since the appellant has served about seven months twelve days imprisonment and also considering the nature of the case, I am of the considered view that this much of sentence, as served out by the appellant, is sufficient to serve the purpose.

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the fact that the appellant is the poor person, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be sub-served. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed on merit. However, it is partly allowed on the quantum of sentence and the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant. The sentence of fine is enhanced from Rs. 25,000/-to Rs. 35,000/-. The enhanced amount of fine shall be deposited before the trial Court within three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. If the appellant fails to deposit the enhanced amount of fine within three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order, he shall serve the additional six months imprisonment. The impugned judgment and order stands modified to the extent indicated above.

Let a copy of this judgment and order, along with the LCR be sent back to the Court concerned.