Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sees Ram vs State Of Punjab -Respondent on 15 April, 2009
Author: Rajan Gupta
Bench: Rajan Gupta
Criminal Appeal No. 2443-SB of 2008 (O & M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No. 2443-SB of 2008 (O & M)
Date of decision: April 15, 2009
Sees Ram -Appellant.
Versus
State of Punjab -Respondent
Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajan Gupta
Present: Mr. HS Rakhra, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr. Shilesh Gupta, DAG, Punjab.
Rajan Gupta, J.
The appellant has been convicted by the Court of Special Judge, Nawanshahr for being in possession of 32 Kgs of poppy husk.
Learned counsel for the appellant states that in view of Section 375(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he is limiting his prayer only to the extent of reduction in the sentence awarded and does not assail the judgment of conviction.
Learned State counsel, on the other hand 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 the parties.
Briefly, the facts of the case are that on 31.3.2005, the police intercepted a person in the area of a bridge canal. He was apprehended on Criminal Appeal No. 2443-SB of 2008 (O & M) 2 suspicion. After following the necessary formalities, search of the accused was conducted. This led to recovery of 32 Kgs of poppy husk.
During trial, the prosecution examined as many as 6 witnesses in support of its case.
The statement of the accused was recorded in terms of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein the incriminating evidence available on record was put to him. He confessed his guilt before the trial Court. However, he prayed for a lenient view in respect of quantum of sentence.
On the basis of the evidence on record, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the appellant was guilty of the offence punishable under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, having been found in possession of the contraband in question. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment thereof to further undergo RI for 7 days.
On a perusal of the judgment, I am of the considered view that the trial Court correctly arrived at a conclusion that the appellant was guilty of the offence alleged against him. The conviction of the appellant is, thus, affirmed.
Even counsel for the appellant, during the course of arguments, has not assailed the judgment of conviction. He, however, pleaded for reduction in the quantum of sentence on the ground that the appellant is a first offender and has already faced the agony of trial for a number of years. Criminal Appeal No. 2443-SB of 2008 (O & M) 3
Learned State counsel has placed on record a reply by way of affidavit of Superintendent, Central Jail, Bathinda, according to which the appellant had undergone 3 months & 25 days of sentence as on 20-3-2009.
Keeping in view the fact that the appellant is a first offender, the recovery effected from his possession falls under the head 'non- commercial quantity' and he has faced trial for over three years, I deem it fit to reduce his sentence to that already undergone by him which would be almost four months by now. Ordered accordingly.
The amount of fine is stated to have already been deposited before the trial Court.
Except with the modification in the quantum of sentence, as indicated hereinabove, the appeal is dismissed.
[Rajan Gupta] Judge April 15, 2009.
'ask'