Rachhpal Singh @ Pala vs State of Punjab

K.C. Puri, J.—This is an appeal directed by the accused-Appellant Rachhpal Singh @ Pala against the judgment dated 15.12.2010 passed by Ms. Manju Rana, Judge Special Court, Bathinda, vide which the accused has been convicted u/s 15 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter after to be referred to as ''the NDPS Act'') and sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In case of default of payment of fine, the accused was to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days, for having been found in possession of 8 Kgs of poppy husk.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case of the prosecution are that on 24.8.2006, ASI Jagraj Singh alongwith the other police officials was on patrol duty towards villages Dhapali, Phule Wala, Ghanda Banna etc. and at village Dhapali, independent witness Parveen Kumar s/o Sarup Chand r/o Bhagla Patti, Phul was joined in the police party. When police party was about 1/2 kilometer behind from village Ghanda Banna, accused was seen coming on foot from the front side, while carrying a gatta plastic on his head, who on seeing the police party tried to retreat and in this process, he fell down along with gatta plastic. On this, mouth of gatta plastic was also opened and some poppy husk scattered on the ground. On suspicion, accused was apprehended at the spot by ASI Jagraj Singh with the help of other police officials. Split poppy husk was collected and again put in the same plastic bag. On checking the plastic bag, poppy husk was recovered. One sample of 100 grams was separated from the recovered poppy husk and residue on weighment came to be 7.900 kgs. Sample parcel and bulk case property were taken into police possession and duly sealed. Ruqa was sent for registration of the case on the basis of which FIR was registered against the accused. Personal search of the accused was conducted for the purpose of jamatalashi. Site plan of place of recovery was prepared. Accused was arrested and statements of witnesses were recorded.

On return to police station, the Investigating Officer produced the accused alongwith sample parcel and case property before SI Devinder Singh, SHO, who after verifying the facts of the case took the same into possession. On 25.8.2006 case property as well as sample parcel alongwith accused were produced before the Illaqa Magistrate. After receiving the report of Chemical Examiner and on completion of investigation, challan was presented against the accused. Charge u/s 15 of the NDPS Act was served upon the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

The prosecution, in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, examined PW-1 C. Sewa Singh, PW-2 Inspector Devinder Singh, SHO, PW-3 ASI Jagraj Singh, Investigating Officer and closed the prosecution evidence.

The accused was examined u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure and all the incriminating evidence was put to him, to which he denied and pleaded that he is innocent, that he has been falsely implicated in this case and no recovery of alleged contraband was effected from him. In his defence the accused examined DW-1 HC Surjit Singh.

The trial Court after appraisal of the evidence found the accused guilty u/s 15 of the NDPS Act and sentence him to undergo imprisonment and fine as narrated above.

Feeling dissatisfied with the above said judgment of conviction, accused - Appellant has preferred the present appeal.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant has not challenged the conviction recorded by the trial Court, but has submitted that Appellant is facing trial for the last more than 4 1/2 years and is not a previous convict. It is further contended that no other case is pending against him. So, prayer has been made for reduction of sentence.

I have carefully considered the submission and have also gone through the record of the case.

So far as the conviction recorded by the trial Court is concerned, that has not been challenged by the counsel for the Appellant. However, since this is the first appeal, I have gone through the record. The judgment is based upon the factual position. From the perusal of the judgment itself, it is revealed that recovery of 8 kgs of poppy husk from the accused-Appellant is dully corroborated by the recovery witnesses. So, the conviction recorded by the trial Court stands affirmed.

Now, reverting to the quantum of sentence, the Appellant is facing trial since August 2006. As per the conviction slip he is not the previous convict nor any other case is pending against him. He has undergone incarnation for a period of 3 months and 1 day as on 28.2.2011. So according to the conviction slip, he has undergone incarnation for a period of 4 months and 4 days as on today out of substantive sentence of 6 months.

So, in these circumstances, the sentence of the Appellant is reduced to the period already undergone. However, the sentence of fine stands reduced to Rs. 2,500/-instead of Rs. 5,000/-as awarded by the trial Court. In default of payment of fine, the Appellant shall undergone rigorous imprisonment for 10 days.

With the above said modification, the appeal stands disposed of.

A copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court for compliance.