Partly allowed

Jawala Singh v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Apr 2009CRA/2023/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Special Leave petition by Jawala Singh challenging conviction under NDPS Act for poppy husk recovery. No appearance. Learned Amicus Curiae found no basis for appeal. Sentence totality reduced considering antecedents, age, family, protracted trial, and non-convict status.

What did the court decide?

Sentence of rigorous imprisonment reduced from three years to nine months. Fine maintained.

Jawala Singh Vs State of Haryana — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Criminal Appeal No. 2023-SB of 2002

¶3

Date of decision: 17^th April, 2009

Jawala Singh

… Appellant

Versus

State of Haryana

… Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

¶10

Present: Mr. H.P.S. Ghumman, Advocate Amicus Curiae for the appellant.

¶11

Mr. Amit Khatkar, Assistant Advocate General Haryana for the State.

¶12

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)

¶13

Jawala Singh son of Bhajan Singh, labourer, resident of Sunam was apprehended by the police party and 25 kg of poppy husk was recovered from him. Recovery was effected on 19^th November, 1996. The appellant has been sentenced by the Court of Special Judge, Panipat under Section 15 of the NDPS Act to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.

¶14

Nobody had appeared in this case on behalf of the appellant. Nobody had caused appearance on 25^th March, 2003, 15^th May, 2008, 29^th May, 2008 and on April 15, 2009. Therefore, Mr.H.P.S. Ghumman was appointed as Amicus Curiae.

¶15

Mr. Ghumman has stated that he has gone through the record of this case and has also perused the judgment. He has submitted that he

¶16

¶17

Criminal Appeal No.2023-SB of 2002

¶18

will not be in a position to assail the conviction of the appellant, as the Court has placed implicit reliance upon the testimony of Mohinder Singh DSP PW-1 and Inspector Samundar Singh Investigating Officer as PW-4. It has further been submitted that in the present case, link evidence has been proved, as prosecution had examined PW-2 Rampal HC and had also tendered affidavit (Ex.PF) of Sushil Kumar. Counsel has stated that in the present case, recovery was effected in year 1996. The appellant has already suffered a protracted trial of about 13 years. Mr.Ghumman has further drawn my attention to order of sentence, wherein it has been noticed that the appellant has got two sons. His parents are old and he is the only bread earner of the family. It has also been stated that his wife has to deliver a child shortly. The order of sentence further notice the contention of the appellant that he is not a previous convict.

¶19

Taking into consideration the antecedents, age and the fact that appellant has a large family to support and that he is not a previous convict along with the fact that appellant has suffered protracted trial, sentence awarded upon the appellant is reduced to nine months rigorous imprisonment. However, sentence of fine is maintained.

¶20

With these modifications in the sentence, present appeal is

¶21

disposed off.

¶22

[KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE

¶23

April 17, 2009 rps

Jawala Singh v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jawala Singh v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sukhdev Singh Vs State of Punjab

Sukhwant Singh Kalsi Vs M/S Jain Boutique and Anr.

Kuldip Singh Vs Gurmail Singh and Ors.

Pardeep Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Kamaljit Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Surinder Singh Vs Manju and Ors.