The High Court upheld conviction and sentence under NDPS Act for possession of poppy husk and opium. The Court directed concurrent running of rigorous imprisonment sentences in two cases to avoid harsh cumulative punishment, relying on Supreme Court principles.
The sentences of rigorous imprisonment in both cases were ordered to run concurrently.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl. Appeal No. 310-SB of 2007 and Crl. Appeal No. 1614-SB of 2006
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Appeal No. 310-SB of 2007 Date of Decision: November 22, 2010
Kaka Singh ........Appellant
Versus State of Punjab ........Respondent And Crl. Appeal No. 1614-SB of 2006 Kaka Singh ........Appellant Versus State of Punjab ........Respondent ******
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present : Mr. S.S. Rana, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr. J.S. Sandhu, AAG, Punjab.
SABINA, J.
Vide this order both the above mentioned appeals would be disposed of.
Appellant Kaka Singh was convicted and sentenced for an offence under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short 'the Act') in FIR No.174 dated 2.9.2004 vide judgment/order dated 8.1.2007/9.1.2007. Aggrieved by the same, Kaka Singh has filed criminal appeal No.310-SB of 2007. Appellant Kaka Singh was also convicted and sentenced for an offence under Section 15 of the Act in FIR No.4 dated 10.1.1997 by the Special Judge, Moga vide judgment/order
Crl. Appeal No. 310-SB of 2007 and Crl. Appeal No. 1614-SB of 2006
2
dated 26.7.2006. Aggrieved by the same, appellant Kaka Singh has filed Crl. Appeal No.1614-SB of 2006.
Heard.
During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged the conviction of the appellant in both the cases under Section 15 of the Act but has submitted that the sentence qua imprisonment of the appellant in both the cases be ordered to run currently. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment passed by this Court in the case of “Pritam Singh Versus State of Punjab, 2007 (4) RCR (Criminal)”, wherein it was held as under :-
“19. Now examining the facts and circumstances of the present case on the parameters as laid down by the Apex Court in Mohd. Akhtar Hussain alias Ibrahim Ahmed Bhatti's case (supra) and the aforesaid principles laid down by us, it is observed that the circumstances which compel us to make a view in favour of the accused are that the accused has already been undergoing sentence of 10 years for keeping three bags of poppy husk in his possession. Now he has been sentenced for 15 years for keeping in his possession 4 kgs of opium. The recovery of 2-1/2 kgs of 1 opium has been held to be non-commercial quantity and the present recovery is little higher to bring it into the definition of commercial quantity and 1-1/2 times punishment was awarded on account of repetition of the offence committed by him. Thus, if the accused undergoes consecutive sentence, then he will have to spend 25 years in jail besides he would have to undergo further
Crl. Appeal No. 310-SB of 2007 and Crl. Appeal No. 1614-SB of 2006
3
sentence in default of payment of fine of Rs. 2.50 lacs which we consider significantly harsh so as to impel us to direct both the sentences to run concurrently.”
Section 427 Cr.P.C. reads as under :-
427.Sentence on offender already sentenced for another offence :-
(1) When a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment or imprisonment for life, such imprisonment or imprisonment for life shall commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to which he has been previously sentenced, unless the Court directs that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence:
Provided that where a person who has been sentenced to imprisonment by an order under section 122 in default of furnishing security is, whilst undergoing such sentence, sentenced to imprisonment for an offence committed prior to the making of such order, the latter sentence shall commence immediately .
(2) When a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for life is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment for a term or imprisonment for life, the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence .”
Thus, as per the above provision when a person is already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment and he is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment then the sentences shall run consecutively in both the cases unless directed by the Court that the subsequent sentence was run concurrently with the previous sentence. In the present case, the petitioner has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years in FIR No.14 dated 10.1.1997 registered at Police Station Mehna
Crl. Appeal No. 310-SB of 2007 and Crl. Appeal No. 1614-SB of 2006
4
under Section 15 of the Act vide order dated 26.7.2006 by Judge Special Court, Moga. Subsequent to the said conviction and sentence the appellant has also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment rigorous imprisonment for 10 years in FIR No.174 dated 2.9.2004 registered at Police Station Shahkot under Section 15 of the Act vide order dated 8.1.2007. Thus, in case the sentences are ordered to run consecutively, the appellant will have to spend 20 years in jail. Besides he would have to undergo sentence in default of payment of fine which is ` one lac in each case. In these circumstances, it would be just and expedient to order that sentences in both the cases shall run concurrently.
Accordingly, the conviction and sentence of the appellant as ordered by the Courts' below in FIR No.174 dated 2.9.2004 and FIR No.4 dated 10.1.1997 are upheld. However, it is ordered that the sentence qua imprisonment in both the cases shall run concurrently.
Appeals stand disposed of accordingly.
(SABINA) JUDGE
November 22, 2010 Anand
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the concurrent imprisonment for conviction under Section 15 of the NDPS Act in two separate FIRs is appropriate.
Whether relief on account of concurrent running of both sentences be granted.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Pritam Singh Versus State of PunjabRelied on¶17
Pritam Singh Versus State of Punjab, 2007 (4) RCR (Criminal)
Mohd. Akhtar Hussain alias Ibrahim Ahmed BhattiExplained¶18
Mohd. Akhtar Hussain alias Ibrahim Ahmed Bhatti
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Kaka Singh
State of Punjab
Sabina
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
