Ranjit Singh vs State of Punjab

T.P.S. Mann, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by Sessions Judge, Sangrur on 12.2.2002 whereby the Appellant was convicted u/s 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act for being found in possession of one kilogram of opium and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. The Appellant was also convicted u/s 15 of the Act for being found in possession of five kilograms of poppy husk and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months.

According to the prosecution, on 3.4.1997 at about 8.00 p.m., the police party headed by SI Gurwinder Singh stopped truck No. PB-13-B-7725 coming from the side of village Bhatian Kalan, along the metalled road. The truck was being driven by Jaswinder Singh, since a proclaimed offender, whereas the Appellant was the conductor and sitting by the side of the driver. One black coloured bag made of rexine sheet was lying in the lap of the Appellant. The same contained five kilograms of poppy husk and one kilogram of opium.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant has not challenged the impugned judgment of conviction. However, he has submitted that the Appellant is a first offender. He has been facing the agony of criminal prosecution for the last more than 131/2 years. The contraband recovered from him did not fall within the definition of commercial quantity. He has already undergone a period of about seven months. He is the sole bread earner of his family and in case he is sent behind the bars, once again, for undergoing his remaining sentence of imprisonment, his family would be exposed to hardship. Therefore, the remaining sentence of imprisonment of the Appellant be set aside.

Learned State counsel has submitted that narcotics are eating into very substratum of the society and, therefore, the Appellant, who was found in possession of five kilograms of poppy husk and one kilogram of opium does not deserve any concession in the matter of sentence. However, the State counsel has placed on record the custody certificate as per which the Appellant had remained behind the bars as a convict for a period of three months and twelve days.

It may also be mentioned here that alongwith the appeal, the Appellant has attached certificate Annexure P-1 issued by Superintendent, Sub Jail, Malerkotla as per which he remained in jail as an undertrial from 7.4.1997 to 24.5.1997 and, thereafter, from 16.7.1997 to 4.9.1997. In view of the same, the Appellant has already undergone an actual sentence of six months and seventeen days.

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

Resultantly, the conviction of the Appellant for the offences under Sections 18 and 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act is maintained. His substantive sentences of imprisonment on both the counts are reduced to that already undergone by him. However, the fine of Rs. 5,000/-for the offence u/s 18 of the Act is enhanced to Rs. 15,000/-, and in default thereof, he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for nine months while the fine of Rs. 1,000/-for the offence u/s 15 of the Act is enhanced to Rs. 5,000/-and in default thereof, he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. He is, however, granted four months'' time for depositing the amount of fine.

The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.