Manga Singh vs State of Punjab

Paramjeet Singh, J.—The present appeal has been preferred by Manga Singh, who was nominated as an accused in case FIR No. 99 of 17.07.2002, registered at Police Station Sangat, u/s 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the "NDPS Act"). The learned Trial Court vide the impugned judgment dated 21.03.2003 found the appellant guilty of offence u/s 15 of NDPS Act and vide the order of even date, sentenced him to undergo RI for nine months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default whereof, he was to undergo further RI for 20 days. In the present appeal, challenge is to conviction pronounced and sentence awarded by the learned Trial Court upon the appellant - Manga Singh.

Brief facts as culled out from the record of the case are, that on 17.07.2002 ASI Gurjit Singh along with other police officials and Gurcharan Singh PW when reached near the bridge of Kassi in the area of Village Bandi, accused was seen coming carrying a bag. On the basis of suspicion, he was apprehended. On the consent of the accused for search before a gazetted officer, DSP Gautam Singal on being called through wireless message, reached at the spot. Thereafter, on the direction of the DSP, Investigating Officer searched the bag of the accused which led to the recovery of 15 kgs of poppy husk. 200 grams poppy husk was separated as sample. Sample and remaining poppy husk were sealed separately and taken into possession. Personal search memo Ex. PD was prepared. Ruqa Ex. PF was sent to the police station, on the basis of which, formal FIR Ex. PF/1 was recorded. Rough site plan was prepared. On the next day, accused and case property were produced before the Court. Thereafter, challan was presented in Court. Finding a prima facie case against the appellant, he was charge-sheeted to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined PW1 ASI Gurjit Singh and has tendered into evidence report of Chemical Examiner (Ex.PL) and has closed its evidence.

Thereafter, when the accused examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C., he admitted the prosecution allegations.

The learned Trial Court, after trial, convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal.

I have heard the Learned Counsel for the appellant, as well as, the learned State counsel.

On being confronted with the quality of evidence available on the record, which is cogent and convincing and leads to no other conclusion but the conviction of the appellant, Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that he will not be able to successfully challenge the conviction of the appellant. However, he prays that the sentence of the appellant be suitably reduced as this criminal trial is hanging on his head like Damocles'' sword for the last more than ten years and it should be a sufficient mitigating circumstance to treat him leniently. Counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the occurrence pertains to the year 2002 and since then a period of more than ten years has elapsed. The appellant has suffered the ordeal for a long period.

In view of the arguments advanced by Learned Counsel for the appellants, which have been noticed above, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose will be served by sending the appellant behind the bars for serving remaining sentence at this point of time. It is a fit case wherein the sentence awarded to the appellant can be reduced to the period already undergone. Ordered accordingly. However, sentence of fine and default clause shall remain intact. With the observations made above, present appeal is disposed of.