Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurmail Singh @ Gela vs State Of Punjab -Respondent on 17 March, 2009
Author: Rajan Gupta
Bench: Rajan Gupta
Criminal Appeal No. 45-SB of 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No. 45-SB of 2009
Date of decision: March 17, 2009
Gurmail Singh @ Gela - Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab -Respondent
Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajan Gupta
Present: Mr. Sameer Sachdeva, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr. Shailesh Gupta, DAG, Punjab.
Rajan Gupta, J.(Oral)
This is an appeal against the judgment dated 27-9-2008 delivered by the Special Court, Mansa. The trial Court after recording the prosecution evidence in which as many as five witnesses appeared, came to the conclusion that the accused/appellant was guilty of possession of contraband (i.e. 25.200 Kgs of poppy husk). He was convicted under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and sentenced to undergo RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default whereof to further undergo RI for two months.
Learned counsel has contended that his limited prayer is for reduction in quantum of sentence awarded by the Court below without challenge to conviction of the appellant. Learned counsel has submitted that there is no record of the appellant being a previous convict in any criminal case, particularly under the NDPS Act. According to him, in the Criminal Appeal No. 45-SB of 2009 2 present case the quantity of poppy husk recovered from the possession of the appellant is much below the commercial quantity and out of the total awarded sentence of one year, by now he has undergone 9 months and 12 days. Learned counsel, therefore, prays that keeping in view the fact that he is a first offender and the quantity of contraband recovered from him was below the commercial quantity, the sentence be reduced to the period already undergone by him.
Learned State counsel has not seriously opposed the prayer. In view of the above, while upholding conviction, the substantive sentence awarded by the trial Court to the appellant is reduced to 9 months & 12 days i.e. the period already undergone by him. The amount of fine awarded by the Court below is also reduced to Rs.500/-.
Except with the modification in the quantum of sentence and fine, as indicated hereinabove, the appeal stands dismissed.
[Rajan Gupta] Judge March 17, 2009.
'ask'