Inder Pal v. State Of Punjab
!"#$!%&'&"() *+ *+ ,
) - .+ ++/.
!"#$
%
&
'''
++0!1 23 +0 2 ,
4
(
)
( * + "!
,+ "(- 0.(0 1 "
2 3 2 4 (56 .7 0.((
" 2 3 ) "!
" " 00 48 " "
+ .( 7 ...9
+.(+
* " " 07 .7 0.(( the appellant was apprehended while having in possession of intoxicant powder containing
50 grams Dextropropoxyphene, which is marginally above the small quantity. Pursuant thereto, the trial Court vide impugned judgment and order of sentence dated 16.08.2012 had convicted the appellant and sentenced him to undergo aforesaid imprisonment. $ " "
+ +"!
(- 0.(0+ "
,+ " ,+" " " ".5+ 0: ".( * ! ! " 48 ; " 2 , 0.(( !
) + 3)
9 +
< " )
" " " ./ .= 0.07
) ) + "" "
!
" ! " " " " " " .5+ 0: ".( ! " !
+ "" - The appellant is stated to have been convicted for having in possession of intoxicant powder containing 50 grams Dextropropoxyphene, which is marginally above the small quantity attracting the offence under Section 22 of the NDPS Act, for which no minimum punishment has been
5 prescribed. Moreover, the FIR in the present case pertains to the year 2011 and he has already faced the rigors of the trial for more than 14 years. :
;> + ?
) " + + " + " @ + +++A +++ " ) " " + ! B"3 "
" )
"
" " 3
!
" + )
"
" "++ "" " )
+ ,+"
"
)
+ "
! " " ) + "
" A" ! "+" / 2 )1 B"
;C + ! " "# $ $$%%
+ " !"
" +3 "" + " !
+ "
* )
) + + "
" A"
! "
"+""
" "
" + + )
"
" +)"++ "" "" 3 " ) ""
) "
" + ""
= A perusal of the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court indicates no perversity in its findings and the same is based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record. However, learned counsel for the appellant has not assailed the judgment of conviction on merits, rather restricted the prayer only qua modification of quantum of sentence to that of the sentence already undergone by the appellant. (.
*he FIR in the present case was registered on 25.05.2011 and the appellant has been suffering the agony of trial for over 14 years. Undoubtedly, there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Section 22 of the NDPS Act. Keeping in view the fact that the appellant has faced the rigors of the trial for more than a period of 14 years;
" " .5+ 0: ".( ! ! " 48 " therefore, while taking a lenient view, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice if the sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him. (( , ) + # % * + (- 0.(0 1 "
2 3 )! "! + A "
+.( ) " "
+ #
%* " + 7 ...9 + " (. ...9 * "
, " + )
+ + " " "
" +
) 3 " +
++
(0 " #% ""
++/.
*+ *+ ,
D @ 3 9 ) E94 @ E94