Gurjant Singh v. State Ofpb.

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-S-1505-SB-2004 Date of decision: 25.01.2024 Gurjant Singh ...Appellant

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY ***** Present :

Mr. HS Rakhra, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Manipal Singh Atwal, DAG, Punjab.

***** AMAN CHAUDHARY, J.

1.

Challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment/order dated 29.05.2004, passed by the learned Judge Special Court, Moga, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years alongwith fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of the same, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months, for the offence punishable under Section 18(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act').

2.

Briefly put, the facts culminating in the filing of the present appeal are that on 24.04.2002, when ASI Surjit Singh alongwith other police officials were on patrolling duty in connection with the checking of miscreants and suspected vehicles, they apprehended the accused possessing a bag. After apprising him about his rights, search was conducted in the presence of a Gazetted Officer and recovery of 1 Kg of opium was effected. The requisite

-2samples were drawn and sealed. Ruqa was sent on the basis of which an FIR was registered.

3.

After completion of investigation, final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented in the Court against the accused. On finding a prima facie case, charges were framed against him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4.

The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as 8 witnesses. Thereafter, the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., whereby incriminating evidence was put to him, which he denied. He pleaded innocence and false implication. In defence, he examined one witness.

5.

The trial Court, after appreciating the evidence, came to the conclusion that prosecution has proved its case beyond any reasonable doubt, and accordingly convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in para No.1 above.

6.

Aggrieved appellant is before this Court.

7.

Learned counsel for the appellant, at the outset, gives up the challenge to his conviction and prays for reducing the sentence to the period already undergone, it being 7 months and 4 days, on the ground that he is not involved in any other case under this Act; belongs to poor strata of society; sole bread winner of the family; recovery was above small quantity but below commercial quantity; never misused the concession of bail and has been facing the agony of protracted trial for the last 21 years. 8.

Learned State counsel opposes the appeal on the ground that the trial Court after evaluating the evidence has rightly convicted the appellant and the

-3sentence awarded to him cannot be said to be excessive, therefore, he prays for the dismissal of the present appeal. He, however, affirms the fact of the noninvolvement of the appellant in any other case under this Act as per the custody certificate.

9.

Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the record with their able assistance.

10.

Evidently, PW-2 ASI Surjit Singh had deposed that the accusedappellant was apprehended and found to be in conscious possession of the alleged contraband, which fact was corroborated by PW3-HC Chand Singh. As per Ex.PN, proved by the Chemical Examiner, contents of contraband were opined to be 'opium'. Thus, there is no scope for interference in the findings recorded therewith and the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court. As such, his conviction is upheld.

11.

Insofar as the prayer for reducing the sentence to the period already undergone is concerned, it would be worthwhile to make a reference to the judgment in S.K. Sakkar @ Mannan vs. State of West Bengal, (2021) 4 SCC 483, wherein the accused was convicted under Section 20 of the Act and Hon'ble the Supreme Court reduced the sentence of five years to 2 years, 4 months and 16 days, by considering that the occurrence took place in 1997 and he was not a habitual offender, rather a first-time convict. 12.

Furthermore, in Naresh Kumar vs. State of Haryana in CRA-S796-SB-2005, decided on 24.02.2023, the sentence of the appellant i.e. 3 years and 6 months, convicted under Section 15 of the Act, was modified to the period undergone i.e. 8 months and 25 days already, by holding that no useful purpose will be served by sending him to jail after 22 years from the date of incident, in

-4view of the fact that he was only about 28 years old at that time. 13.

This Court, considering the judgments referred to above and the mitigating circumstances as pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant, finds that the ends of justice would be adequately served if the sentence of appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him, while keeping the fine intact. 14.

The order of sentence dated 29.05.2004 is modified to the aforesaid extent and as such, the present appeal stands partly allowed. (AMAN CHAUDHARY) JUDGE 25.01.2024 ashok Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes / No Whether reportable :

Yes / No