Ajay Kumar Alias Happy v. State Of Punjab



IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRR-2428-2022 (O & M) Date of decision: 21.08.2023 Ajay Kumar alias Happy

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab .....Respondent 

  



  

 

 


   Mr. C.L.Pawar, Addl. A. G. Punjab.






     



  

 
  
 



!



  "
  
 "
#"
$ "
"


 

%

 &
  
!



'
()*
+ 
 

---
' 

"
 
.
+ 
#"


 
,


/
01


2
#"
'  
)
" #"

/'3


 
4

5
"

   '" 



 "

 
,67
67


01
 
 
3

'
'
33




! 






*



8


"

3


  
'
'
33





3  ''
' 

  


" 

"
"


#'
#"
!

 3

3'
/'3
 


-

""
''

  






    

.'



'
"
"


   

"

""'


/'3 

 


   


 
"!





 


: 




2
"


  

3
 3
" 



 

!




3

!""

 "
 
"

;"
3%'
 3
:

: 3

  "
"


  
!"
 3


  

 "
!


3"<




'

'

" 
---



  

"
'

 "  




4

=

3 

  3


  
3





"
' 
3

)



  
"
"


   "


/'3



>? "
3





A  

;
B'"


)*
6 3  7

C

 

"
 
"
!"
'
  3
3


"
"


  
!"
 3 

 
!


  


 


 33 

3





  
'
"

 
: 







  



 " -

)



"
"


 

 

>'


"
"


 

 
 "
13 







 

 
"! 
' "
 

 

  

 
,67
67 

01

&


3




' 


 
"!



&

3


!





 




 


'


 
"!

 

 

 
,67
67


01

>
  


  



 

"



>!


3



()*
!
'  

---





 




   
"
'

 "
 





4
 

&
>D "
3




?
 67

"



9.

Faced with this, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant relies upon several mitigating circumstances to persuade us to reduce the sentence period. He passionately urges that: (i) the appellant has suffered protracted trial for more than 23 years; (ii) he alone has been convicted while his co-accused are acquitted; (iii) the appellant was not involved in any other case under the NDPS Act or other Penal Laws; (iv) the appellant has already undergone actual sentence of 2 years 4 months and 16 days out of the total sentence of five years; (v) and that the appellant has not misused the concession of bail granted by this Court on 02.11.2012.

10.

We find some merit in the submission noticed above. It may be noted that the appellant committed the crime in the year 1997, i.e., much before the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Amendment) Act, 2001 came into force. The punishment for contravention in relation to cannabis plant or any other provision

4 of the NDPS Act, in his case, would thus be regulated by the unamended Section 20 of the NDPS Act, as it stood before the amendment of 2001 and which reads as follows:

20. Punishment for contravention in relation to cannabis plant and cannabis. Whoever, in contravention of any provision of this Act or any rule or order made or condition of license granted thereunder- (a) cultivates any cannabis plant; or (b) produces, manufactures, possesses, sells, purchases, transports, imports inter-State, exports inter-State or uses cannabis, shall be punishable,- (i) where such contravention relates to ganja or the cultivation of cannabis plant, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to fifty thousand rupees; (ii) where such contravention relates to cannabis other than ganja, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to twenty years and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees and which may extend to two lakh rupees:

Provided that the court may, for reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a fine exceeding two lakh rupees." (emphasis supplied) 11.

It is manifest from Section 20(i) of NDPS Act (as it stood in 1997), that even though a maximum sentence of five years RI and a fine of upto Rs. 50,000/- was prescribed but there was no minimum mandatory sentence. The Legislature had in its wisdom left it to the judicious discretion of a court to award the minimum sentence albeit guided by the well known principles on the proportionality of sentence. Taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, it appears to us that the ends of justice would be adequately met if the appellant's sentence is reduced to the extent of the period he has already undergone. We order accordingly.

12.

For the reasons(s) stated above, the appeal is allowed in part; the impugned judgments of the Special Judge and the High

9 Court are modified and the sentence of five years RI awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone. The bail bond of the appellant is discharged. However, the appellant shall be liable to pay fine of Rs. 20,000/- within two months, if already not deposited and in default thereof he will be liable to undergo RI for six months."

14.

&%'
 
 

'

"


   

 

!


/'3


>? "
1




?

67

3




/  !"

  "
3 


 
3


  
 



"
'

3

9

)
!


 
!"
"'

 

   

 

,67
67


01
 

 
3 

  





"
'

3
 / 


 

*

9

8
! 

. 
2'"
   
#"

>!
 



"
"
"" 3
 
+"

3 


 '


 
 *

9

8



3


"
 

  
 "
 ! 





:


 


,

.



3 
3 21.08.2023  






%3   ; 
8%'E
F8+ ; 
  "E
F8+