Partly allowed

Parveen Kumar and Ors. v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC26 Nov 2014CRA-S/1546/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court upheld the conviction of appellants for manufacturing narcotic drugs under Section 18 of the NDPS Act but reduced the prison sentence from three years to two years each due to non-commercial quantity and prolonged trial duration.

What did the court decide?

Conviction upheld; sentence reduced from rigorous imprisonment of three years to two years each; bail bonds cancelled.

Parveen Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Punjab — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶2

Criminal Appeal No.S-1546-SB of 2002

¶3

Date of decision:26.11.2014

¶4

Parveen Kumar alias Pili and another

...Appellants v.

State of Punjab

...Respondent

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh

¶9

.....

¶10

Present: Mr. J.B.S. Gill, Advocate for the appellants.

¶11

Mr. A.S. Klar, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.

¶12

Inderjit Singh, J.

¶13

Appellants-Parveen Kumar alias Pili and Rakesh Kumar have filed this criminal appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.9.2002 passed by learned Special Judge, Hoshiarpur, whereby they have been held guilty and convicted for the offence under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act'). They have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years each and to pay a fine of 5,000/each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months each for the offence under Section 18 of the Act.

¶14

HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2014.12.05 17:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶15

Cr. Appeal No.S-1546-SB of 2002 [2]

¶16

The brief facts of the prosecution case are that accusedappellants Parveen Kumar alias Pili and Rakesh Kumar have been challaned for the offence under Section 18 of the Act on the allegation that on 6.7.2001 at about 5.00 p.m. in the area of Shahpur, they were found coming on scooter No.PB-08-R-8775 from the side of Jhuggies. Rakesh Kumar accused-appellant was driving the scooter while Parveen Kumar was sitting on its pillion. Inspector Parsa Singh gave a signal to stop the scooter, but accused Rakesh Kumar tried to take the scooter towards its backside. On suspicion, they were apprehended with the help of other police officials. Inspector Parsa Singh disclosed his identity to them and asked them that their search was to be conducted. The accused reposed faith in him. Inspector Parsa Singh also asked them that they could take his search before getting their search effected. He had also asked them that if they wanted their search from any Gazetted Officer or Magistrate then arrangement could be made for that also. However, the accused reposed faith in the Inspector. On search from the basket of the scooter a plastic carry bag wrapped in a Parna' was recovered. Opium weighing one kilogram wrapped in glazed paper and kept in bag was recovered. The search of Parveen Kumar was also taken and from the bag which he was carrying, opium weighing one kilogram was also recovered. The opium recovered from each of the accused was put into two separate plastic boxes and these were reduced into separate parcels. These were sealed at the spot with the seal of the Investigating Officer bearing impression PS' and the case property was taken into Police possession

¶17

HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2014.12.05 17:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶18

Cr. Appeal No.S-1546-SB of 2002 [3]

¶19

vide recovery memo Ex.PC. Ruqa' was sent to the police station on the basis of which FIR was registered. DSP (D) was called. In his presence after breaking open the seal of both these bags samples were taken and again the parcels were sealed. Statements of PWs were recorded. On return, the case property was deposited in the Malkhana'. The case property was produced in the Court on the next day. After necessary investigation, the challan was presented in the Court.

¶20

On presentation of challan, the trial Court finding prima facie case against the accused, framed charge for the offence under Section 18 of the Act, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

¶21

In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW-1 Kamaljit Singh, PW-2 MHC Daljit Singh, PW-3 Magh Singh, Clerk, DTO Office, Hoshiarpur, PW-4 Inspector Parsa Singh, PW-5 DSP Kuldip Singh and PW-6 ASI Ram Nath.

¶22

At the close of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and were confronted with the evidence of the prosecution, but they denied the correctness of the evidence, pleaded themselves as innocent and pleaded false implication in the case. They further stated that no recovery was effected from them. However, they led no evidence in defence.

¶23

After going through the evidence on record, the learned trial Court vide his impugned judgment and order convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants for the offence as mentioned above.

¶24

HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2014.12.05 17:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶25

Cr. Appeal No.S-1546-SB of 2002 [4]

¶26

At the time of arguments, learned counsel for appellants mainly argued that the appellants have been falsely implicated in this case and no recovery has been effected from them. In the alternative, he also prayed for reduction of the sentence.

¶27

On the other hand, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab appearing for the respondent-State argued that the prosecution has duly proved its case by leading cogent evidence. He further argued that the recovery has been duly proved by the PWs. Link evidence is complete. There are no material contradictions in the statements of the PWs. There is no evidence on the record to show that the appellants have been falsely implicated in the case.

¶28

I have heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab appearing for the respondentState and with their assistance have gone through the evidence on record minutely and carefully.

¶29

From the record, I find that Investigating Officer Inspector Parsa Singh PW-4 and PW-5 DSP Kuldip Singh have duly deposed regarding the prosecution version. The link evidence is also complete in this case. No material contradictions have been pointed out in the statements of the PWs. Nothing has been pointed out from the crossexamination of any of the witnesses, which may make their statements unreliable. No improbability has been pointed out in the prosecution version. It is now settled law that testimony of Police official is as good as of any other witness unless some enmity or motive of the Police

¶30

HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2014.12.05 17:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶31

Cr. Appeal No.S-1546-SB of 2002 [5]

¶32

officials against the accused-appellants has been alleged and proved. In the present case, no such enmity or motive has been alleged and proved against the Police officials. Moreover, the PWs have consistently deposed regarding the prosecution evidence. There is no evidence on record to show that the appellants have been falsely implicated in the present case.

¶33

The argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants have been falsely implicated etc. has no merit. Therefore, from the record, I find that the appellants have been correctly convicted by the trial Court as per law and the conviction of both the appellants for the offence under Section 18 of the Act is upheld.

¶34

As regards the alternative plea to reduce the sentence, I find that the recovery from the appellants is non-commercial quantity. The appellants have been suffering for the last 12 years of protracted criminal trial. As per the custody certificate, they have not been involved in any other case. At the time of recovery, they were young men of 20 years and 30 years of age. They are poor persons and only bread earners of their families.

¶35

Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances, the sentence of the appellants is reduced from rigorous imprisonment of three years to RI for two years each, but the sentence of fine and in default of fine will remain the same.

¶36

With this modification in the sentence of imprisonment, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court is modified as above. During the pendency of appeal,

¶37

HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2014.12.05 17:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶38

Cr. Appeal No.S-1546-SB of 2002 [6]

¶39

the sentence of appellants was suspended and as they are on bail, hence, their bail/surety bonds stand cancelled. They are directed to surrender themselves before the jail authorities immediately for completing remainder of sentence, failing which the concerned authority shall proceed against them in accordance with law.

November 26, 2014.

(Inderjit Singh)

Judge hsp

HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2014.12.05 17:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Parveen Kumar and Ors. v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parveen Kumar and Ors. 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

S.S. Chhikara and Anr. Vs Priya

Kitabon and Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Puran Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Kuldeep Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Shoken @ Shokat Vs State of Haryana and Others

Naresh Goyal Vs State of Punjab