Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amrik Singh vs State Of Punjab on 15 March, 2024
Author: Kirti Singh
Bench: Kirti Singh
KAPIL 2024.03.15 17:11 CRA-S-266-SB-2006(O0&M) -1- 2024:PHHC:037748 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 570 CRA-S-266-SB-2006(0&M) Reserved on:01.03.2024 Pronounced on:15.03.2024 Amrik Singh ... Appellant Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present:-. None for the appellant. Mr. Aftab Singh Khara, Sr. DAG, Punjab. 3 2 3k 3k KIRTI SINGH, J.
Challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment and order dated 12.01.2006 passed by Special Court, Bathinda, vide which the appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2500/- for the offence punishable under Section 15 (c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act').
2. Succinctly, the facts of the prosecution case are that on 20.03.2004 SI Rup Singh along with other police officials were present at Talwandi Sabo for patrolling and detection. Thereafter when the police party reached near the bridge of pacca channel they saw the accused-appellant coming from the side of Gurusar holding a bag over his head. On seeing the police party, the accused tried to slip away towards the fields after throwing the bag but was apprehended. The gunny bag | attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document KAPIL 2024.03.15 17:11 CRA-S-266-SB-2006(O0&M) - 2- opened as the appellant had thrown the bag and poppy husk was found visible therein. One sample of 100 gms was separated and remaining weighing 9 kg 900 grams was sealed. The seals were handed over to an independent witness Bawa Singh. A ruqa was sent to the police station on the basis of which FIR was registered. On completion of investigation, challan was presented against the accused and charges under Section 15(c) of the NDPS Act were framed, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. To prove its case, the prosecution had examined as many as 4 prosecution witnesses. On closing of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. All the incriminating material was put to him, which were denied and he alleged false implication by the police and pleaded innocence. In defence, the accused did not lead any evidence.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence brought on record, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution had successfully proved its case in bringing home the guilt against the accused and convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,500/- for the offence punishable under Section 15 (c) of the NDPS Act.
5. Hence, the present appeal.
6. A perusal of the case file reveals that at the time of conviction the appellant was 21 years old and was not involved in any other case. As per the custody certificate he has undergone actual | attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document KAPIL 2024.03.15 17:11 CRA-S-266-SB-2006(O0&M) -3- sentence of 05 months and 09 days out 01 year and recovery was of non-
commercial quantity. He has been facing a protracted trial for 19 years.
7. Learned State counsel submits that the trial Court after appreciating the evidence led by the prosecution, has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant, therefore, prays for the dismissal of the present appeal. He has filed the affidavit of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub-Division Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda on behalf of the State which indicates that as per record, no other criminal case has been pending or decided against the accused/appellant before the Police administration and Court of Law.
8. Heard the learned State counsel and with his able assistance perused the record.
9. This Court has examined judgment of conviction. The Trial Court had thoroughly examined the evidence and observed that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant. The recovery was effected from him by following proper procedure and there is nothing on record to suggest that the appellant was falsely implicated in the case. From the statements of the witnesses, the link of evidence appears to be complete. Thus, the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant as referred to above and there is no scope for interference in the findings recorded and conclusion arrived at by it. As such, the conviction of the appellant is affirmed.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukesh Kumar vs. State of MP. (Now Chhatisgarh), (2014) 16 SCC 571, in case of a conviction of rigorous imprisonment of 6 months had reduced the | attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document KAPIL 2024.03.15 17:11 CRA-S-266-SB-2006(O0&M) - 4- sentence of the appellant to 4 months, being the period already undergone by him. In the case of S.K. Sakkar @ Mannan vs. State of West Bengal, (2021) 4 SCC 483, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reduced the sentence of five years awarded under NDPS Act, to already undergone sentence of 2 years 4 months and 16 days, considering the mitigating circumstances that included the petitioner having faced prolonged trial, not being involved in any other case and having not misused the concession of bail. Further, in M.Sampat vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2021) 6 SCC 201, wherein narcotics were recovered from the truck, on which the appellant was an indigent helper (described as Conductor), the sentence was reduced to the period already undergone by him while considering the age of the appellant at the time of incident being 22/23 years and being a first time offender.
11. In Tarsem Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2016 SCC OnLine P&H 9236, the sentence of one and a half years as awarded to the appellant, was reduced to the period already undergone, being 3 months and 29 days by this Court on the grounds that the recovery effected from the appellant i.e. 40 grams of smack was non-commercial, the appellant was a first time offender, sole bread earner of the family and had faced the protracted criminal proceedings for almost 4 years.
12. Now reverting to the facts of the present case as emerged from the record with regard to the appellant, this Court after considering the mitigating circumstances and the judgments referred to above and considering the fact that the appellant has been facing protracted trial for 19 years, finds that the ends of justice would be adequately met if the sentence of the appellant is ordered to be reduced to the period already | attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-266-SB-2006(O0&M) -5- undergone by him in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, particularly, considering that the appellant is a first offender and recovery effected from him was of non-commercial quantity. He has undergone substantial sentence of 5 months and 9 days out of 01 year and is not involved in any other criminal offence.
13. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction of the appellant is upheld, however, the sentence is ordered to be reduced to the period already undergone by him. The order of sentence dated 12.01.2006 passed by Special Court, Bathinda is modified to the aforestated extent.
However, the fine shall remain intact.
14. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
15. All pending applications, if any, are disposed of, accordingly.
16. Records of the Court below be sent back.
(KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE 15.03.2024 Kapil Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No KAPIL 2024.03.15 17:11 | attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document