The High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed the appeal convicting the appellant under Section 15 of the NDPS Act by commutation, reducing the remaining sentence to the period already undergone while retaining the fine.
The remaining sentence was commuted to the period already undergone; the fine and default clause were retained.
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.
CRA No.S-697-SB of 2003
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRA No.S-697-SB of 2003
Date of Decision: July 13, 2012
Gamdoor Singh alias Goga
... Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH
Present: Mr. Suraj Preet Singh, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr. K.S. Aulakh, AAG, Punjab.
Paramjeet Singh, J.
The present appeal has been preferred by Gamdoor Singh, who was nominated as an accused in case FIR No.30 of 25.03.2001, registered at Police Station Sadar Bathinda, under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the “NDPS Act”). The learned Trial Court vide the impugned judgment dated 03.04.2003 found the appellant guilty of offence under Section 15 of NDPS Act and vide the order of even date, sentenced him to undergo RI for nine months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default whereof, he was to undergo further RI for 15 days.
In the present appeal, challenge is to conviction
CRA No.S-697-SB of 2003
2
pronounced and sentence awarded by the learned Trial Court upon the appellant – Darshan Singh.
Brief facts as culled out from the record of the case are, that on 25.03.2001 Des Raj, SHO, PS Kotwali Bathinda along with other police officials was present at Bus-stand, Jassi Pau-Wali in connection with patrolling and checking. PW Dev Singh met the police party and he was joined with the police party. When they were going towards Village Jodhpur Romana from Village Jassi Pau-wali and pass 100 Karams, accused was seen coming carrying a gatta plastic at his head from the side of Village Jodhpur Romana. On the basis of suspicion, he was apprehended. On the consent of the accused for search before a gazetted officer, DSP Sohan Singh on being called through wireless message, reached at the spot. Thereafter, on the direction of the DSP, Investigating Officer searched the bag of the accused which led to the recovery of 12 kgs. 250 grams poppy husk was separated as sample. Sample and remaining poppy husk were sealed separately and taken into possession. Personal search memo Ex.PC was prepared. Ruqa Ex.PF was sent to the police station, on the basis of which, formal FIR Ex.PF/1 was recorded. Rough site plan (Ex.PG) was prepared. On the next day, accused and case property were produced before the Ilaqa Magistrate. Thereafter, challan was presented in Court. Finding a prima facie case against the appellant, he was charge-sheeted to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined PW1 Sohan Singh DSP (Retired), PW2 Inspector Des Raj, and PW3 CI Bhupinder Singh. After giving up PW Dev Singh , being won over by
CRA No.S-697-SB of 2003
3
the accused, the prosecution closed its evidence.
Thereafter, statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. All incriminating circumstances were put to him. He denied the same and pleaded innocence. However, in his defence, he has examined DW1 Mandir and DW2 Sadhu Singh.
The learned Trial Court, after trial, convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal.
I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, as well as, the learned State counsel.
On being confronted with the quality of evidence available on the record, which is cogent and convincing and leads to no other conclusion but the conviction of the appellant, learned counsel for the appellant submits that he will not be able to successfully challenge the conviction of the appellant. However, he prays that the sentence of the appellant be suitably reduced as this criminal trial is hanging on his head like Damocles' sword for the last more than eleven years and it should be a sufficient mitigating circumstance to treat him leniently. Counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the occurrence pertains to the year 2001 and since then a period of more than eleven years has elapsed. The appellant has suffered the ordeal for a long period.
In view of the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellants, which have been noticed above, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose will be served by sending the appellant behind the bars for serving remaining sentence at this point of time. It is a fit case wherein the sentence awarded to the appellant can be reduced to the period already undergone. Ordered accordingly.
CRA No.S-697-SB of 2003 4
However, sentence of fine and default clause shall remain intact.
With the observations made above, present appeal is
disposed of.
July 13, 2012 [Paramjeet Singh) vkd Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the sentence of the appellant convicted under the NDPS Act should be reduced given the long period spent in pending trial.
Whether the fine and default clause in the original sentence should remain intact.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Gamdoor Singh alias Goga
State of Punjab
Paramjeet Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
