Surinder Singh vs State of Punjab

Rajan Gupta, J.—This is an appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11th February, 2010, delivered by Special Court, Jalandhar. The trial court after recording the prosecution evidence, came to the conclusion that the accused/Appellant was guilty of possession of contraband (i.e. 10 Kgs of poppy husk. He was convicted u/s 15 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to be as "NDPS Act") and sentenced to undergo RI for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default whereof to further undergo RI for one month.

Feeling aggrieved against the judgment of the trial court, the Appellant has approached this Court through the instant appeal.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant states that he is limiting his prayer only to the extent of reduction in the sentence awarded and does not assail the judgment of conviction. Learned Counsel has submitted that the Appellant is a poor old man and is the only bread winner of his family. According to him, in the present case the quantity of contraband (poppy husk) recovered from the possession of the Appellant is much below the commercial quantity and out of the total awarded sentence of six months, he had already undergone 03 months and 18 days. Learned Counsel, therefore, prays that keeping in view the fact that he has to support his family and the quantity of contraband recovered from him is below the commercial quantity, the sentence be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

Learned State counsel has placed on record a reply by way of affidavit dated 16th April, 2011 of the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jalandhar, according to which the Appellant had already undergone 03 months and 13 days of sentence as on 16th April, 2011. He submits that in case conviction of the Appellant is maintained, the court may reduce the sentence as deemed appropriate in the circumstances of the case.

I have heard learned Counsel for both the parties.

Briefly, the prosecution case runs thus:

On 8th September, 2008, a police party headed by SI Narotam Kumar had been going towards village Daroli Kalan. When the said police party reached on the bridge of drain of village Jabhar Sahib, the accused (Appellant herein) was seen riding a bicycle carrying a sack upon it, who on seeing the police got scared and tried to beat a retreat. On suspicion, accused was nabbed and his name and parentage was asked from him. As it was suspected that the accused was in possession of some contraband, he was apprised about his legal right and when the sack carried by the accused on the carrier of his bicycle was searched, it was found containing poppy husk. One sample of 250 grams of poppy husk was separated and when weighed, the remainder came out to be 9 Kgs 750 grams of poppy husk. He was arrested. After completion of investigation and on receipt of report of chemical examiner, the accused was sent up for trial.

Finding a prima facie case u/s 15 of the NDPS Act, charge sheet was framed against the accused/Appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

To substantiate its case against the accused/Appellant the prosecution examined as many as five witnesses.

The statement of accused u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded, wherein the incriminating evidence available on record was put to him. He refuted the incriminating circumstances and pleaded false implication. However, he did not produce any evidence in his defence.

On the basis of the evidence on record, the learned trial court held the Appellant guilty of the charge framed against him and sentenced him as already indicated above.

On a perusal of the impugned judgment as well as trial court record, I am of the considered view that the trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record while holding the Appellant guilty of the charge framed against him. There is no infirmity or illegality in the findings given by the court below. The conviction of the Appellant is, thus, affirmed.

Even counsel for the Appellant, during the course of argument, has not assailed the judgment of conviction. He has, however, pleaded for reduction in the quantum of sentence on the ground that the Appellant is the main bread winner of his family.

Keeping in view facts and circumstances of the case, as also the fact that the Appellant is a poor man and has to support his family, I deem it fit to reduce his substantive sentence to the period already undergone by him. However, the fine imposed by the trial court shall remain intact. Ordered accordingly.

The fine, if not deposited already, be deposited within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which the modification in quantum of sentence shall stand withdrawn and the Appellant shall undergo the remaining period of sentence as awarded by the trial court.

Except with the modification in the quantum of sentence and fine, as indicated hereinabove, the appeal stands dismissed.