Sardool Singh vs State of Haryana

K.C. Puri, J.

Crl.M. No. 6935 of 2011

Learned Counsel for the Appellant do not press the application for suspension of sentence. However, he prays that the main appeal be heard.

The application stands dismissed as not pressed.

The main appeal is taken up for hearing today.

Crl.A. No. 2369 SB of 2010

This is an appeal directed by accused-Appellant Sardool Singh against the judgment dated 1.9.2010 passed by Sh. Ravi Kumar Sondhi, Additional Sessions Judge, Special Court (NDPS Act cases), Karnal, vide which the accused has been convicted u/s 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be referred as ''the NDPS Act), for having been found in possession 20 kgs of poppy husk and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 4 years and to pay a fine of 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year.

The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 13.12.2005 police party headed by Assistant Sub Inspector Virender Singh, in a Govt. TATA Sumo vehicle, was going towards Sagga Sambli from Karnal, in connection with patrolling and detection of crime and when they reached on Karnal Sagga Sambhli road near bridge of drain Taraori within the area of Village Kachhwa, in the meantime, a person was seen going on foot towards Kachhwa Farm, who was having a plastic bag of while colour on his head. On suspicion, the accused was apprehended with the help of other police officials and on interrogation he disclosed his name as Sardool Singh s/o Waryam Singh.

Suspecting some narcotic substance in the bag, notice u/s 50 of the NDPS Act was served upon him, informing him about intention to search the bag in possession of the accused. The accused was apprised about his legal right to get the said bag searched in the presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. The accused reposed confidence in the Investigating Officer. On search of plastic bag, 20 kgs of poppy husk was recovered. Two samples of 100 gms each were separated. The samples and residue poppy husk were converted into sealed parcels and were taken into possession vide a recovery memo. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer sent ruqa to the police station leading to registration of formal FIR and prepared rough site plan of the place of recovery and recorded statements of the witnesses. The accused was arrested. The accused and the case property were produced before Inspector SHO/ASI Hukam Singh, who after verification affixed his own seal on the case property. A parcel of the sample was sent to FSL for analysis. On receiving the report of FSL and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was prepared u/s 173 Code of Criminal Procedure.

Charge u/s 15(b) of the NDPS Act was framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

The prosecution, in order to bring home guilt of the accused examined P.W. 1 Constable Abhey Singh, P.W. 2 Constable Devinder Singh, P.W. 3 ASI Ram Chander, P.W. 4 ASI Hukam Singh, P.W. 5 SI Satpal Singh, P.W. 6 SI Virender Singh, 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 false implication. He was called upon to plead his defence. The accused produced D.W. 1 Gurman Singh and D.W. 2 Piara Singh and closed his defence evidence.

Learned trial Court after appraisal of the evidence, found the accused guilty for having been found in possession of 20 kgs of poppy husk without any licence or permit and consequently, the accused was sentenced to undergo imprisonment and fine as narrated above.

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

Learned Counsel for the Appellant has not challenged the conviction, but has submitted that as per the allegation 20 kgs of poppy husk was recovered from the Appellant. The Appellant is facing trial since the year 2005. The age of the Appellant is about 70 years. So, prayer has been made for reduction of sentence.

I have carefully considered the submission made by Counsel for the Appellant. Since this is first appeal, I have gone through the records.

So far as the conviction recorded by the trial Court is concerned, the same has not been challenged. Otherwise also, from the perusal of the evidence, it is revealed that recovery is corroborated by the prosecution witnesses and there is nothing on the file to interfere in the conviction recorded by the trial Court. So, the conviction recorded by the trial Court stands confirmed.

Now, reverting to the quantum of sentence, the trial Court has sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 4 years and to pay a fine of 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. As per the conviction slip placed on the file, the Appellant is not a previous convict nor he is facing trial in any other case. The Appellant is facing trial in the present case since 2005. The age of the Appellant has been mentioned as 64 years in the judgment of the trial Court itself. So, according to the judgment itself, the age of the Appellant would be about 69 years. Charge was stated to be framed in the year 2006. The Appellant is facing trial for the last 6 years. The quantity of contraband recovered is 20 kgs of poppy husk, which is non-commercial.

So, keeping in view all the circumstances, the substantive sentence of the Appellant is reduced to the rigorous imprisonment for 1 year instead of 4 years. However, the sentence of fine awarded by the trial Court stands affirmed.

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

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