Convicted appellant challenging disproportionate sentence for possession of opium. Court held quantity was non-commercial under NDPS Act. Modified sentence to match time already served and reduced fine based on ratio of similar cases.
Sentence reduced to 2 1/2 years rigorous imprisonment and fine reduced to Rs. 10,000.
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.
Crl. Appeal No. S-434-SB of 2001
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No. S-434-SB of 2001 (O&M) Date of Decision : May 21st , 2013
Vijay Kumar .... Appellant Versus State of Punjab .... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present Mr. Rishav Jain, Advocate, for Mr. Arihant Jain, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr. Amit Chaudhary, DAG, Punjab, for the State.
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.
Vijay Kumar, the appellant has been convicted for an offence punishable under section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, "the Act") by the court of Judge, Special Court, Sangrur vide judgment dated 10.2.2001 a case registered by way of FIR No. 249 dated 11.12.1998 at Police Station Dhuri. He has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- with further rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years in default of payment of fine.
The prosecution case against the appellant is that on
Crl. Appeal No. S-434-SB of 2001
2
11.12.1998, the appellant was apprehended while he was having in his possession 2 kgs and 100 gms. of opium.
Mr. Rishav Jain, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted at the outset that he does not want to assail the judgment of conviction of the appellant. He has submitted that he has to make submissions on quantum of sentence. According to him, the opium recovered is 2 kgs. 100 gms., which is a non-commercial quantity. According to him, in three similar cases, the co-ordinate Benches of this court have reduced the sentence. The first case cited by him is Manjit Kaur Vs. State of Punjab 2010 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 486 . In this case, the opium recovered from the accused has been 2 Kg. The accused had suffered protracted trial for 17 years and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years was set-aside and the same was reduced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2-1/2 years.
In Ajai Vikas Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2003 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 597, the opium recovered from the possession of the accused was 1 kg. 400 gms. The accused was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1.00 lac. The quantity being non-commercial, the sentence was reduced to the one already undergone i.e., 3 years and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-.
In Dalip Singh Vs. State of Haryana, 2003 (2) AICLR 396 , the opium recovered was 200 grams, non-commercial quantity and the sentence awarded was reduced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months and the fine was reduced to Rs. 1,000/-.
A quantity above 2 kg. 500 gms. of opium is commercial
Crl. Appeal No. S-434-SB of 2001
3
quantity as per the definition of the expression “Commercial Quantity” appearing in section 2(viiia) of the Act. When the quantity of the opium recovered from the appellant is non-commercial, the sentence to be awarded to the appellant would have to be extending upto 10 years and not 10 years and above. The appellant has faced protracted trial in this case for 15 years. He has already undergone sentence of 2-1/2 years in this case.
Keeping in view the aforesaid circumstances and in view of the ratio of the above cited decisions, I partly accept the appeal and upholding the judgment of conviction of the appellant passed by learned Judge, Special Court, Sangrur, dated 10.2.2001, I modify the order on sentence reducing the sentence awarded to Vijay Kumar, the appellant to the sentence already undergone by him and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default of payment of which to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 months.
(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE
May 21st , 2013 som
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the sentence awarded for non-commercial quantity of opium exceeded the statutory limit and required modification.
Whether the sentence should be reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant.
Whether the fine should be reduced to Rs. 10,000 to align with co-ordinate bench decisions.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Manjit Kaur Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶17
Manjit Kaur Vs. State of Punjab 2010 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 486
Ajai Vikas Singh Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶18
Ajai Vikas Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2003 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 597
Dalip Singh Vs. State of HaryanaReferred¶19
Dalip Singh Vs. State of Haryana, 2003 (2) AICLR 396
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Vijay Kumar
State of Punjab
Vijender Singh Malik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
