The High Court reduced the appellant's substantive sentence from three to one year rigorous imprisonment under the NDPS Act. The court accepted that the drug quantity was non-commercial and the appellant had been on bail without misuse.
Sentence reduced to one year rigorous imprisonment upon surrender; fine maintained at 8,000.
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.
..1..
Criminal Appeal No.665-SB of 2002
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No.665-SB of 2002 Date of Decision : December 04, 2012
Kulwant Sharma
...Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI
Present: Mr.C.L.Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.Rupam Aggarwal, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab.
Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.
The appellant was convicted and sentenced by learned Judge, Special Court, Jalandhar, for the offence punishable under Section 18 (c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the “NDPS Act”) and awarded rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years besides payment of fine of ` 8,000/- and in default thereof, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months.
The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was apprehended while carrying 1 kg opium without any permit or licence. After thorough investigation, the charge-sheet (report under Section 173, Cr.P.C.) was presented for his prosecution. Charge under Section 18 (c) of the NDPS Act was framed to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In order to substantiate its allegation, the prosecution
Criminal Appeal No.665-SB of 2002 ..2..
examined as many as five witnesses and thereafter, statement of the appellant in terms of Section 313, Cr.P.C was recorded. He denied the incriminating evidence and pleaded innocence. No defence evidence was led.
Learned counsel for the appellant has very fairly opted not to challenge the conviction of the appellant. However, he submits that the alleged recovery was effected in the year 2000 and the appellant was granted bail during trial but he did not misuse the said concession. He further submits that the appellant is neither required nor involved in any other case. He also contends that he has young children to maintain. He also contends that the appellant has joined the mainstream of the life, therefore, it would not be expedient in the interest of justice to send him to jail after about 10 years of passing of the impugned judgment, therefore, he has prayed for reduction of the substantive sentence.
Learned counsel for the State has produced the affidavit of the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jalandhar, showing the period of incarceration suffered by the appellant. It reveals that the appellant had suffered incarceration for 07 months and 21 days. The affidavit further reveals that the appellant is neither required nor involved in any other case. Heard.
Though the learned counsel for the appellant has opted not to challenge the conviction of the appellant but to satisfy the conscience of this Court, the material available on
..3..
Criminal Appeal No.665-SB of 2002
record has been re-appraised and it is found that the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court, is well based. There is no infirmity, illegality or perversity in the same. However, there is force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant that the substantive sentence awarded to the appellant is on higher side. It is conceded position that the opium recovered from the appellant was of non-commercial quantity. The appellant had faced the agony of trial and appeal for about 12 years. He is neither required nor involved in any other case. The appellant has a family to maintain. The appellant was admitted to bail during the course of trial and appeal but he did not misuse the said concession.
Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances of the case, the substantive sentence of the appellant is reduced to rigorours imprisonment for one year but there shall be no change in the amount of fine imposed by the learned trial court. The appellant shall surrender before the competent authority for serving out the remaining period of his sentence of imprisonment.
The Criminal appeal is disposed of with the above modification in the order of sentence.
December 04, 2012 seema
(Naresh Kumar Sanghi) Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment along with fine should be reduced given the non-commercial quantity of drugs and other mitigating factors.
Whether the appellant, who has suffered trial and appeal for 12 years and was admitted to bail, should have his substantive sentence reduced.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Kulwant Sharma
State of Punjab
NARESH KUMAR SANGHI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
