Jasbir Singh @ Kiran vs State of Punjab

T.P.S. Mann, J.—The instant appeal had been filed by the appellant against the judgment and order dated March 30, 2010 passed by Judge, Special Court, Mansa, whereby the appellant was convicted u/s 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act for being found in possession of 20 kgs of poppy husk without any licence or permit and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months.

Learned Counsel for the appellant has not challenged the conviction of the appellant. However, she has submitted that the appellant is not a previous convict. He has small children to look after whereas his father has already died. He is the only earning member of his family and his aged mother is dependent upon him. Moreover, till date the appellant has undergone about ten months out of the sentence of two years imposed upon him. Therefore, the sentence of the appellant be reduced to that already undergone by him.

Learned State counsel has submitted that the appellant does not deserve any leniency in the matter of sentence as menace of sale and purchase of narcotic drugs is on the rise in the State of Punjab especially in District Mansa where the youth is becoming addicted to such like substances and their healths are suffering.

As per the custody certificate appended with the appeal as Annexure A-1, the appellant remained in jail as an under trial for five months and nineteen days and as on 22.6.2010 he suffered a further period of two months and twenty two days as a convict. A period of about one month and ten days has elapsed since the issuance of the aforementioned certificate. As of day, the appellant must have undergone about ten months of his sentence.

Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, the Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the appellant behind the bars for undergoing his remaining sentence. Ends of justice would be amply met if the substantive sentence of imprisonment of the appellant is reduced to that already undergone by him.

Resultantly, the conviction of the appellant u/s 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act is maintained. However, his substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced to that already undergone by him. The sentence of fine alongwith its default clause is maintained.

The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.