Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kuldip Rai vs State Of Punjab on 11 September, 2014
CRA-S-555-SB of 2004(O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA,
AT CHANDIGARH
CRA-S-555-SB of 2004(O&M)
Decided on: September 11, 2014
Kuldip Rai ..........Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab .......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHAVIR S. CHAUHAN
Present: Mr. Baljinder Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. P.S. Paul, DAG, Punjab.
Mahavir S. Chauhan, J.(Oral)
The appellant is aggrieved by judgment/order dated 23.02.2014, whereby learned Special Judge, Sangrur (for short "trial Court") has convicted and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 4 ½ (four and half years) with fine amounting to Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further rigorous imprisonment for 6 months, under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ( for short "NDPS Act") on proof of the allegation that he was found to have in his possession opium weighing 2 Kgs and for possession thereof he could not show any permit or licence. After completion of investigation the appellant was challaned .
Charge under Section 18, NDPS Act was framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Prosecution, to support its case, examined as many as five RASHMI 2014.09.16 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-555-SB of 2004(O&M) 2 witnesses. Statement of accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C., for short) was recorded where he was confronted with all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence. He denied these circumstances and reiterated plea of his innocence and false implication.
In defence, the appellant examined four witnesses. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
Learned counsel for the appellant at the very outset submits that the appellant does not dispute the correctness of the findings of conviction as recorded by the trial Court but he prays for leniency as regards the quantum of sentence on the plea that on the date of occurrence appellant was only 45 years of age, is the only bread earner of the family and there is no criminal history before or after the occurrence in question.
In view of the above, while maintaining the findings of conviction as recorded by the trial Court, order on quantum of sentence is modified and substantive sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to 2 years but the sentence as regards fine and default clause, however, are maintained.
With the above modification in the order of quantum of sentence, the appeal fails and is dismissed.
September 11, 2014 (MAHAVIR S. CHAUHAN)
rashmi JUDGE
RASHMI
2014.09.16 15:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document