Allowed

Balkar Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Nov 2012CRA-S/1252/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this first appeal against conviction and sentence under the N.D.P.S Act for possession of 8 kgs of poppy husk, the High Court affirmed the conviction. However, noting the appellant had served five months of a six-month sentence after a long delay, the Court reduced the term to the period already undergone but affirmed the fine under the ends of justice.

What did the court decide?

Sentence of rigorous imprisonment reduced to period already undergone; fine affirmed.

Balkar Singh Vs State of Punjab — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CRA NO. S-1252-SB OF 2012 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRA NO. S-1252-SB OF 2012 (O&M) DECIDED ON : 17.11.2012

Balkar Singh

...Appellant

versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. C. PURI

¶11

Present : Mr. S. K. Arya, Advocate, for the appellant.

¶12

Mr. Sandeep Chhabra, DAG, Punjab.

¶13

K. C. PURI, J.

¶14

CRM NO. 67328 OF 2012

¶15

This is an application for pre-poning the case from 01.12.2012 for today.

¶16

Notice of the application was given.

¶17

Learned counsel for the respondent-State has

¶18

appeared.

¶19

The total sentence in this case is six months and the appellant had already undergone incarnation for a period of 05 months. So, the application stands allowed and the main case is taken up today.

¶20

CRM NO. 60205 OF 2012

¶21

Learned counsel for the appellant do not press the application for suspension of sentence, at this stage and submits

¶22

CRA NO. S-1252-SB OF 2012 (O&M)

¶23

-2-

¶24

that he is ready with the arguments in the main appeal.

¶25

The application stands dismissed as not pressed.

¶26

MAIN CASE

¶27

Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.02.2011 passed by Shri Paramjeet Singh, Judge Special Court, Patiala, vide which accused/appellant had been convicted under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short “the Act”) for having been found in possession of 8 kgs of Poppy husk on 24.10.2008, without any permit or licence. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of `1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten days.

¶28

The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 24.10.2008 at about 8.00 A.M in the area of village Muradpura the accused was apprehended along with the poppy husk by the police party headed by ASI Gurdev Singh. Two samples of 100 gm each were separated and the remaining poppy husk was found to be 07 kg 800 gm. The sample and parcels were prepared and duly sealed with seal bearing impression “G.S”. The accused was formally arrested. The sample was sent for chemical examination.

¶29

After completion of investigation, challan under Section 173 Cr.P.C was presented in Court.

¶30

CRA NO. S-1252-SB OF 2012 (O&M)

¶31

-3-

¶32

On presentation of challan, copies of same under Section 207 Cr.P.C were supplied to the appellant free of costs.

¶33

Charge under Section 15 of the N.D.P.S Act was framed against the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

¶34

In order to prove its case, prosecution examined Constable Miha Singh as PW-1, ASI Gurdev Singh as PW-2, HC Gurjit Singh as PW-3 and closed the evidence.

¶35

The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C wherein all the incriminating evidence was put to him to which he pleaded false implication. The appellant did not opt to lead defence evidence.

¶36

Learned trial Court, after appraisal of the evidence, found the appellant guilty for an offence punishable under Section 15 of the Act for having been found in possession of 8 kgs of Poppy husk, without any permit or licence. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment, as mentioned above in the judgment.

¶37

Today the case was fixed for suspension of sentence but learned counsel for the parties have stated at the bar that they are ready with the main appeal and arguments in the main appeal be heard.

¶38

Learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged the conviction recorded by the trial Court but has submitted that the petitioner has already undergone incarnation for a period of

¶39

CRA NO. S-1252-SB OF 2012 (O&M)

¶40

-4-

¶41

04 months and 19 days as on 05.11.2012. In this manner, he has undergone actual incarnation for a period of five months out of the substantive sentence of six months.

¶42

Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that appellant is facing trial for the last more than 04 years.

¶43

Although learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged the conviction recorded by the trial Court, but since this is the first appeal, I myself have satisfied regarding the guilt of appellant. The recovery witnesses have supported the case of prosecution on all material aspects. The other necessary formalities, as provided under the Act, have been complied with. As such, the conviction recorded by the trial Court stands affirmed.

¶44

The total sentence awarded by the trial Court is six months and the appellant has already undergone incarnation for a period of five months. He is facing trial since 24.10.2008. The quantity of poppy husk recovered from the appellant is 8 kgs. In these circumstances, the ends of justice would be met in case the sentence of the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him. I order accordingly. However, sentence of fine stands affirmed.

¶45

The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

¶46

(K. C. PURI) JUDGE

¶47

NOVEMBER 17, 2012 shalini

Balkar Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balkar Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sawinder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Ashwani Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Navin Deora Vs State of Punjab

Rozleen Rittu Bhatti Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

M/S Pal Infrastructure and Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Manav Chandra and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Anr.