Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mehar Singh & Others vs State Of Punjab on 8 April, 2013
Author: Surya Kant
Bench: Surya Kant
CRA No. 472-DB of 2006 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRA No. 472-DB of 2006
Date of Decision : 08.04.2013
Mehar Singh & others ........ Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab ...... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.P. NAGRATH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present:- Mr. R.K. Handa, Advocate for the appellants.
Ms. Munisha Gandhi, Addl. AG, Punjab
R.P. NAGRATH, J.
The instant appeal was jointly filed by the three convicts including appellant No. 3 (A-3) Hari Dev son of Chandu Ram. A report dated 17.09.2012 accompanied by copy of death certificate has been received from the Superintendent Central Jail, Gurdaspur where Hari Dev was lodged, that he died on 27.12.2007 while on parole. None of his near relative applied to this Court for leave to continue the appeal. Therefore, the appeal qua A-3 would stand finally abated on his death in terms of Section 394 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for brevity 'Code'). CRA No. 472-DB of 2006 -2-
2. The appellants faced trial of the charge under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short to be referred as 'the Act') for possessing 279 kgs. of poppy husk in a Mahindra Jeep bearing registration No. HP-29-0619, without permit or licence. They were convicted of the said charge by Special Judge, Gurdaspur and each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 12 years and a fine of ` 1 lac each, in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The period of detention already undergone by them during investigation and trial of the case was to be set off against substantive sentence of imprisonment.
3. The version of prosecution is that on 11.11.2003, police party headed by Sulakhan Singh, Incharge Police Post, Division No. 2, Pathankot, falling in Police Station Division No. 1 including ASI Tarsem Lal was holding Nakabandi (roadblock), for checking vehicles and bad elements, opposite Canada Marriage Palace on Dalhousie Bye Pass Road, Pathankot. Bhupinder Singh son of Chanan Singh resident of Guru Gobind Singh Nagar, Pathankot, who came there, was associated by the Police party. At about 5.00 p.m., the Police party spotted Mahindra Jeep No. HP-29-0619, coming from Simble Chowk, Pathankot, and it gave a signal to the Jeep driver to stop but the driver and two other persons sitting on the bags loaded in the rear portion of the Jeep tried to flee. All the three occupants were apprehended. Mehar Singh, appellant No. 1 (A-1) was driver of the vehicle and other two persons sitting on the heap of bags are Lal Singh appellant No. 2 (A-2) and A-3. All of them belong to District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh.
CRA No. 472-DB of 2006 -3-
4. The material filled in the bags was smelling some intoxicant. SI Sulakhan Singh, PW-5 disclosed his identity to the accused and told them that he suspected some contraband in the bags loaded in Jeep which was, thus, to be searched. PW-5 also informed the appellants that they have a legal right to be searched by him or from some gazetted officer or a Magistrate. The appellants expressed unwillingness to be searched by PW-5 and the memo Ex. PR in that regard signed by all the appellants was prepared.
5. A message was sent to Dharamvir Singh, Dy.SP (PW-4), who reached the spot at about 6.00 p.m. PW-4 introduced himself to the appellants and informed them that he is a gazetted officer. He further told them that the bags loaded in the Jeep were suspected to contain some contraband, so the Jeep is to be searched. The appellants were asked if they want the search to be made in the presence of PW-4 or before a Magistrate. The appellants reposed faith in the DSP and consent memo Ex. PN was prepared.
6. Search of the Jeep was then conducted and 9 bags of poppy husk were recovered. Samples of 250 gms. from each of the bag were separated and remaining quantity was weighed by arranging a weighing machine and each bag was found containing 30.750 kgs. of poppy husk. The sample parcels and bags were sealed with seal impressions 'SS' (two each) of PW-5 and 'DS' (two each of PW-4). Specimen of the seal impressions were also prepared and seals after use were handed over to Bhupinder Singh, an independent witness. The case property was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PQ and for the Mahindra Jeep separate CRA No. 472-DB of 2006 -4- memo Ex. PS was prepared. Certain cash amount was recovered from personal search of each of the appellant for which memos Ex. PV/1, PV and PV/2 respectively were prepared. The arrest memo of these appellants are Ex. PW to Ex. PW/2. All the memos prepared at the spot were also attested by Bhupinder Singh, independent witness. The rough sketch of the place of recovery is Ex. PU. The ruqa (information in detail) Ex. PT was sent to Police Station, Division No. 1, Pathankot where formal FIR Ex. PT/1 was registered.
7. The prosecution story further unfolded during the trial is that nine bags of poppy husk were produced before the SHO, Police Station, Division No. 1 Pathankot on return and deposited with him, whereas remaining case property i.e. 9 sample parcels, cash amount recovered on personal search and Mahindra Jeep were deposited with the MHC of Police Post, Division No. 2.
8. SI Baldev Singh SHO Police Post Division No. 1 (PW-1) produced the case property before the Area Magistrate on the next day by moving an application Ex. PL and Magistrate passed the order Ex. PL/1 on the application for disposal of property under the rules after permitting the taking of photographs and preparing the inventory. The duplicate set of the same documents exhibited during examination of PW-5 Investigating Officer (IO) are Ex. PX and PX/I.
9. Meconic Acid and morphine was found in the fine powder contained in the sample bags and thus declared poppyHead in the report of chemical examiner Ex. PY. The charge-sheet against appellants was, thereafter, presented before the Special Judge.
CRA No. 472-DB of 2006 -5-
10. The appellants pleaded not guilty to the charges. The prosecution examined seven witnesses in support of its case. Bhupinder Singh independent witness was given up as won over by the appellants.
11. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the appellants denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence and plead false implication. Mehar Singh (A-1), the driver of Jeep set up the following defence plea:
"On 10.11.2003 at about 5.30 pm I was present at bus stop Pathankot alongwith Hari Dev and there was rush in the bus and we were sitting on seats. Certain police official of Police Station Division No. 2 Pathankot came there and compelled us to vacate the seat as police officials were to board the bus. On our refusal to do so, both of us were taken to police station on the night of 10.11.2003 and were falsely implicated in this case on 11.11.2003."
Similar plea was raised by Hari Dev.
12. Lal Singh (A-2), the other person sitting on the bags of poppy husk pleaded that he was working as a labourer in the Grain Market, Pathankot from where he was picked up by the Police of Division No. 2 just to please their seniors of showing detection of a crime. He has no concern with the co-accused.
13. In defence the appellants examined DW-1 HC Sukhdev Raj from Police Station, City, Division No. 1, Pathankot and DW-2 Constable Charan Dass, Police Station Division No. 2, Pathankot with the record of the Police Stations.
CRA No. 472-DB of 2006 -6-
14. Learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforesaid, which has been challenged by them by way of this appeal.
15. We have heard learned appellants' counsel and learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab.
16. Learned appellants' counsel has challenged the conviction on the grounds inter-alia :-
(i) there is non compliance of Sections 50, 55 and violation of Section 42 of the Act;
(ii) the joint consent memo of the appellants is not permissible and the law requires that rules of Procedure have to be strictly complied with in respect of an offence prescribing stringent punishment;
(iii) no evidence of ownership of vehicle has been collected;
(iv) the only independent witness allegedly joined has not been examined and no attempt was made to join any other witness from the public during course of investigation at the spot;
(v) report of chemical examiner does not support the prosecution case as percentage of morphine has not been determined in the contraband;
(vi) link evidence is doubtful; and
(vii) to prove the offence, conscious possession of contraband is the requirement but no evidence worthwhile is forthcoming.
17. On the other hand learned State Counsel supported the judgment of the trial Court by contending that:-
(i) there is no allegation of the Police party having prior enmity CRA No. 472-DB of 2006 -7- or ulterior motive to falsely plant a huge recovery of contraband article;
(ii) the appellants have not furnished explanation for carrying 9 bags of poppy-husk in the Jeep in which they were traveling rather their plea is of simple denial;
(iii) this was a case of chance recovery from the vehicle which was intercepted and Section 42 of the Act, is not applicable;
and
(iv) the link evidence is also complete.
18. We have carefully evaluated the evidence of recovery of nine bags of poppy husk loaded in the Jeep as per the prosecution story testified by PW-4 Dharamvir Singh DSP, PW-5 SI Sulakhan Singh, Investigating Officer (IO), who was incharge of Police Post Division No. 2, Pathankot and PW-6 ASI Tarsem Lal, a member of the police party headed by SI Sulakhan Singh and find the same to be trustworthy.
19. Despite extensive cross-examination of these witnesses of recovery, they withstood the test of scrutiny. They are quite consistent on various material time factors like arrival of DSP at about 6.00 p.m. at the spot on receiving message; the Police party leaving the spot at about 11.00 p.m. on completion of proceedings and on the fact that writing work was done by arranging chairs from the marriage palace which was located nearby i.e. Canada Palace. It may also be added that endorsement of the Area Magistrate on the FIR Ex. PT/1 shows that the same was received by him at 9.30 p.m. on 11.11.2003 itself. The prompt reporting of the matter to the Magistrate would further rule out the possibility of manipulation CRA No. 472-DB of 2006 -8- and concoction.
20. It was basically urged that no independent witness has been examined nor any other witness from the public was associated. In this regard PW-4 and PW-5 are consistent in stating that there was no shop nearby. PW-4 and PW-6 also denied the suggestion that the place of recovery is located in thickly populated area. According to PW-6, there is a college situated at a distance of ½ kilometer from Canada Palace. It is, however, nobody's case that college was open at that time. The Police party in fact had associated an independent witness during Nakabandi but the witness was given up as won over by the appellants. The non- examination of the only independent witness would only require extra caution and care while scrutinizing evidence of recovery but there is absolutely nothing on record to suspect the testimony of three witnesses of recovery including PW4 DSP who is quite a senior officer.
21. The defence plea set up for the first time during examination of appellants under Section 313 of the Code to bring motive does not carry any weight. The kind of defence plea raised by appellants neither appeals to reason nor it carries any value being an afterthought version.
22. Both PW-5 and PW-6 consistently stated in terms of the prosecution story that all the three occupants of Jeep tried to run away on seeing the Police party. This immediate conduct gives rise to the presumption of their conscious possession of the contraband.
23. Learned State Counsel vehemently contended that appellants and their companion (deceased) had first shown their unwillingness to be searched by IO and on arrival of DSP they expressed confidence in him CRA No. 472-DB of 2006 -9- after his identity was disclosed to them. It is not the appellants' case that they raised any dispute about any of them being not in possession of contraband article, may be on the basis that one of them was travelling in Jeep by taking lift. Rather A-1 and A-3 (since deceased) have taken exactly the same unfounded plea of being apprehended one day before the date of recovery. The above plea is rather falsified from the question put to PW-5 as to whether this vehicle was earlier checked in the day at about 3.00 PM on 11.11.2003.
24. The present is not a case of recovery from a residential premises or heavy transport vehicle like truck that the appellants could plead ignorance about nine bags of poppyHead loaded in the Jeep which is a light motor vehicle especially when the Police party suspected the bags to be containing contraband as these were smelling some intoxicant. The fact that no evidence of ownership of Jeep was collected, does not improve the appellants' defence. The vehicle was, however, produced during the examination of PW-5.
25. In Balbir Kaur v. State of Punjab, (2009) 15 SCC 795, appellant a 70 years old lady was detected by the Police party during patrol duty, sitting on two bags of poppy husk. On seeing the Police party she turned her face towards village and from the conduct and behaviour of appellant a suspicion arose that the bags contained some contraband and she stated that the bags did contain poppy husk and in the meanwhile an independent witness was joined and then DSP accompanied by lady constable was also called. The conviction of appellant Balbir Kaur in that case was upheld. In that case also the independent witness was not CRA No. 472-DB of 2006 -10- examined and the conscious possession of appellant was found from her conduct apart from her own statement at the time of her apprehension.
26. We also find that there is no violation of the requirement of Section 42 of the Act. Firstly because this was not a case of intercepting the vehicle on any prior information. This was during the routine Nakabandi for checking of vehicles and bad elements that the Jeep was intercepted. Secondly a wireless message was sent to the DSP who reached the spot as testified by PW-4 and PW-5 and this would amount to giving information to immediate official superior by the IO. The Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Karnail Singh vs. State of Haryana, (2009) 8 SCC 539 has concluded:-
"35. In conclusion, what is to be noticed is Abdul Rashid did not require literal compliance with the requirements of Sections 42(1) and 42(2) nor did Sajan Abraham hold that the requirements of Section 42(1) and 42(2) need not be fulfilled at all. The effect of the two decisions was as follows:-
(a) The officer on receiving the information (of the nature referred to in Sub-section (1) of Section
42) from any person had to record it in writing in the concerned Register and forthwith send a copy to his immediate official superior, before proceeding to take action in terms of Clauses (a) to (d) of Section 42(1).
(b) But if the information was received when the CRA No. 472-DB of 2006 -11- officer was not in the police station, but while he was on the move either on patrol duty or otherwise, either by mobile phone, or other means, and the information calls for immediate action and any delay would have resulted in the goods or evidence being removed or destroyed, it would not be feasible or practical to take down in writing the information given to him, in such a situation, he could take action as per Clauses (a) to (d) of Section 42(1) and thereafter, as soon as it is practical, record the information in writing and forthwith inform the same to the official superior.
(c) In other words, the compliance with the requirements of Sections 42(1) and 42(2) in regard to writing down the information received and sending a copy thereof to the superior officer, should normally precede the entry, search and seizure by the officer. But in special circumstances involving emergent situations, the recording of the information in writing and sending a copy thereof to the official superior may get postponed by a reasonable period, that is after the search, entry and seizure. The question is one of urgency and expediency.CRA No. 472-DB of 2006 -12-
(d) While total non-compliance of requirements of Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 42 is impermissible, delayed compliance with satisfactory explanation about the delay will be acceptable compliance of Section 42. To illustrate, if any delay may result in the accused escaping or the goods or evidence being destroyed or removed, not recording in writing the information received, before initiating action, or non-sending a copy of such information to the official superior forthwith, may not be treated as violation of Section 42. But if the information was received when the police officer was in the police station with sufficient time to take action, and if the police officer fails to record in writing the information received, or fails to send a copy thereof, to the official superior, then it will be a suspicious circumstance being a clear violation of Section 42 of the Act. Similarly, where the police officer does not record the information at all, and does not inform the official superior at all, then also it will be a clear violation of Section 42 of the Act. Whether there is adequate or substantial compliance with Section 42 or not is a question of fact to be decided in each case. CRA No. 472-DB of 2006 -13-
The above position got strengthened with the amendment to Section 42 by Act 9 of 2001."
27. Under Section 42(2) of the Act copy of the information is required to be sent in writing to immediate official superior is within 72 hours. PW-2 Constable Manmohan Krishan was detailed with a duty to send copy of FIR to the Magistrate and other senior officers. He tendered his affidavit Ex. PL. In the cross-examination, PW-2 stated that he delivered the FIR to the Area Magistrate at 9.50 p.m. He also stated that he delivered the copy of FIR to the other higher officers of the Police on the next morning. He also delivered the said report to DIG Border Range at 8.00 a.m. on 12.11.2003. Therefore, there is full compliance of Section 42 of the Act.
28. The learned appellants' counsel contended that the joint statement of appellants was recorded by the IO and then by the DSP, which is not permissible rather separate statements should have been taken. The appellants have not been able to show what prejudice was caused due to the recording of joint consent memo rather the presence of the DSP at the spot adds confidence in the story of recovery because search was made as per testimony of the witnesses after the DSP reached there.
29. PW-5, however, stated in the cross-examination that he gave offer to the accused individually but prepared non-consent memo jointly. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Krishna Kanwar v. State of Rajasthan, (2004) 2 SCC 608 also held that there is no specific form prescribed or intended for conveying the information required to be given under Section 50. CRA No. 472-DB of 2006 -14- What is necessary is that the accused (suspect) should be made aware of the existence of his right to be searched in the presence of one of the officers named in the section itself. Since no specific mode or manner is prescribed or intended, the court has to see the substance and not the form of intimation. Whether the requirements of Section 50 have been met is a question which is to be decided on the facts of each case and there cannot be any sweeping generalization and/or a straitjacket formula.
30. The law on the subject is otherwise well settled that requirement of Section 50 of the Act is necessary only when search of the person of the accused is made and not where search of the bag or the vehicle in which the contraband is being carried. This principle was held in Kalema Tumba v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., (1999) 8 SCC 257 and is being consistently followed. It was held in Sarjudas & Anr. v. State of Gujarat, (1999) 8 SCC 508 that on plain reading of Section 50 of the Act it would come into play only in the case of a search of a person as distinguished from search of any premises etc.
31. It is next contended that the link evidence to connect the report of chemical examiner Ex. PY with the recovery is doubtful. It is urged that there is delay of one week in sending the samples to the chemical examiner, which has seriously prejudiced the accused. What is the serious prejudice, has not been highlighted nor any such question was put to PW-3 Naresh Kumar MHC of the Police Station to explain any such delay. The office of Chemical Examiner is situated at Chandigarh and sample was to be sent from Pathankot, a town far away from Chandigarh. It normally happens that the samples are sent from particular district or CRA No. 472-DB of 2006 -15- sub-division of a district once in a week and therefore, one week of delay cannot be fatal to the prosecution particularly when it has been certified in the report Ex. PY that the seals of the exhibits were intact on arrival and agreed with the specimen seal sent. The exhibits remained in safe custody thereafter till the time the analysis was started.
32. In Hardip Singh v. State of Punjab, (2008) 8 SCC 557, 40 days delay in sending the samples of seized opium to Forensic Science Laboratory was found to have no consequence for the fact that the recovery of the said sample from possession of the appellant stands proved and established by cogent and reliable evidence led at the trial. In that case also statement regarding recovery made by the IO was corroborated by higher officer of the rank of DSP, who was also examined at length during the trial. It was found that the said recovery was effected in the presence of DSP, a senior officer, who also put his seal on the said parcels of opium. Besides it had also come in evidence that till the date, the parcels of sample were received by chemical examiner, the seal put on the said parcels was intact. That itself proves and establishes that there was no tampering with the aforesaid seal on the sample at any stage and the sample received by the analyst for chemical examination contained the same opium which was recovered from possession of the appellant.
33. The other prominent contention of the appellants is that there is non compliance of Section 55 of the Act and the evidence on this aspect is also contradictory. Section 55 of the Act reads as under:-
"55. Police to take charge of articles seized and delivered.
- An officer-in-charge of a police station shall take CRA No. 472-DB of 2006 -16- charge of and keep in safe custody,pending the orders of the Magistrate, all articles seized under this Act within the local area of that police station and which may be delivered to him, and shall allow any officer who may accompany such articles to the police station or who may be deputed for the purpose, to affix his seal to such articles or to take samples of and from them and all samples so taken shall also be sealed with a seal of the officer-in-charge of the police station."
34. Evidence has been led by the prosecution to the effect that sample parcels were not deposited with SI Baldev Singh, the SHO Police Station Division No. 1, Pathankot under which Police Post Division No. 2 fell. PW-5 stated that on reaching Police Station Division No. 1, Pathankot, he handed over nine bags of poppy husk to SHO Baldev Singh of the Police Station, who sealed the bags with his seal bearing impression 'BS'. Thereafter, PW-5 came to Police Station Division No. 2, Pathankot and handed over the cash amount recovered from personal search of appellants and the Jeep to MHC of the Police Post and kept the sample parcels with himself to be produced before the Area Magistrate. In the cross-examination PW-5 stated that after producing the samples before the Area Magistrate on next date he handed over the sample parcels to MHC Naresh Kumar of Police Station Division No. 2. There is nothing unusual in this procedure adopted by the IO, especially when the case property was to be produced before the Area Magistrate on next date. There is certification by the Chemical Examiner that the seals on the sample CRA No. 472-DB of 2006 -17- parcels sent were intact. The sample parcels were not only bearing seals of the IO but also of DSP (PW-4).
35. MHC Naresh Kumar PW-3 tendered his affidavit Ex. PM to the effect that till the time sample parcels were handed over to Constable Jasvir Singh for being deposited in the office of Chemical Examiner, the seals on the samples were not tempered and remained intact. He is corroborated by PW-7 Constable Jasvir Singh, whose affidavit is Ex. PY. In his affidavit MHC Naresh Kumar stated that the case property was deposited with him on 12.11.2003 by IO. Both PW-3 and PW-7 have also been extensively cross-examined without any contradiction with the record.
36. For the appellant, it is contended that the link evidence has been demolished by PW-1 SI Baldev Singh then posted as SHO Police Station Division No. 1. According to PW-1, nine bags of poppy husk each containing 30.750 kgs. of quantity bearing seal impressions 'SS' and 'DS' was brought to him by PW-5 on 11.11.2003. PW-1 put his own seal 'BS' on the bags and kept the bags in double lock. PW-1 further testified that on 12.11.2003, he produced the case property before the Area Magistrate vide application Ex. PL/1, where inventory of the articles Ex. PA was prepared and the photographs Ex. PB to Ex. PK were taken. PW-1 also stated that the Court ordered the case property to be deposited in the Treasury but on his request the court ordered that the case property be destroyed. PW-1 was confronted with the averment contained in the application Ex. PL/1 where it is mentioned that the case property i.e. 9 bags and sample parcels was produced by the IO before PW-1, who also CRA No. 472-DB of 2006 -18- put his seal 'BS' on the same, but PW-1 clarified that this was incorrectly stated as he did not put his own seal on the sample parcels. The consistent story of prosecution as testified by PW-5 (IO) is that the sample parcels were kept by the IO himself who produced those sample parcels before the Area Magistrate on the next date when SI Baldev Singh, SHO of Police Station Division No. 1 Pathankot also produced nine bags of poppy husk, which is the reason that the mistake appears to have crept in while preparing the application Ex. PL/1. The above version is duly corroborated by PW-3 MHC Naresh Kumar of Police Post, Division No. 2, who stated in the cross-examination that seal of SI Baldev Singh was not affixed on the sample parcels deposited with him by PW-5.
37. Ex. PA is the inventory prepared after seeking orders from the Magistrate. At serial No. 4 of the list is detail of case property comprising of 9 bags each containing 30 kgs. 750 gms of poppy husk and 9 sample parcels each containing 250 gms. of the quantity. Column at serial No. 5 relates to Mark, number or any other identifiable item. In this column it is entered that each bag bears seal impressions 'SS':2; 'DS':2; and of 'BS' one. Regarding 9 samples, it is entered as bearing seals 'SS'; 2 each and 'DS' 2 each and does not show the sample parcels were also bearing seal 'BS' of SI Baldev Singh (PW-1). These details in the inventory would, thus, make the evidence on the issue quite consistent.
38. The appellants examined DW-1 HC Sukhdev Raj from Police Station Division No. 1 and DW-2 Constable Charan Dass, both of whom brought Register No. 19 (in relation to deposit of case property) of this FIR, but nothing could be shown to bring suspicion to the prosecution CRA No. 472-DB of 2006 -19- story. DW-2 stated in the cross-examination that the main case properties relating to Police Post Division No. 2 are deposited in Police Station Division No. 1, where the FIR is registered whereas sample parcels and other articles are deposited in Police Post Division No. 2, Pathankot. The witness produced copy of the relevant entry Ex. PX showing deposit of Mahindera Jeep and cash amount recovered from personal search of all the appellants in Police Post Division No. 2. It is also recorded that 9 sample parcels were sent by the MHC through C. Jasvir Singh on 20.11.2003 to the officer of the Chemical Examiner thereby corroborating the link evidence in the case.
39. We find in the present case that since the sample parcels were bearing two seals each of DSP and the IO, the fact that the samples were not deposited in the Police Station Division No. 1 or that nine sample parcels were not bearing seals of SI Baldev Singh, would not bring any gap in the link evidence at all, especially in view of the cogent evidence of recovery led by prosecution.
40. We also find that percentage of the morphine is only relevant where contraband is opium and not in case poppy husk. This view is fortified from judgment of Hon'ble supreme Court in Ajaib Singh v. State of Punjab, (2000) 4 SCC 510.
41. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any ground to interfere with the conviction of the appellants for the offence under Section 15 of the Act recorded by learned Special Judge.
42. In the end learned counsel for the appellants contended that award of 12 years of rigorous imprisonment is on the higher side. We are CRA No. 472-DB of 2006 -20- inclined to accept the above argument of learned counsel that there was nothing extra ordinary to award more than the minimum sentence provided for the offence. We accordingly reduce the period of substantive sentence of imprisonment from 12 years to 10 years rigorous imprisonment which is the minimum sentence prescribed for the offence.
43. With the above modification in the quantum of sentence, the appeal is dismissed. The bail of appellants is cancelled and they will surrender to their bail bonds to undergo remaining part of the sentence. Copy of this order be sent to all the concerned for compliance.
( SURYA KANT) (R.P. NAGRATH)
JUDGE JUDGE
April 08, 2013
jk