Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dharampal vs State Of Punjab on 24 August, 2022
CRA-S-1943-SB-2016(O&M) -:1:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRA-S-1943-SB-2016(O&M)
Date of decision:-24.8.2022
Dharampal
...Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S.MADAAN
Present: Mr.S.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate (Legal Aid Counsel)
for the appellant.
Mr.Anmol Singh Sandhu, AAG, Punjab.
****
H.S. MADAAN, J.
1. Appellant/accused Dharampal was tried by Special Judge,
Fatehgarh Sahib in case FIR No.27 dated 15.3.2013 for an offence under
Section 15 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), Police Station Amloh, on the
allegations that on 15.3.2013 at about 7:00 a.m. in the area of village
Salana Dulla Singh Wala, when apprehended by the police party led by
ASI Bhupinder Kumar, he was found in possession of 18 kgs. of poppy-
husk without any permit or licence. In terms of judgment dated 16.2.2016,
the accused/appellant was convicted in that case for the offence for which
he was booked and vide order of that very date, he was sentenced to
1 of 5
undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of `30,000/-
and in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of 3 months.
2. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and
order of sentence (supra), the accused/appellant Dharampal had preferred
the present appeal before this Court, which was put up on 19.5.2016 when
after allowing application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and
condoning the day of 31 days in filing of the appeal, it was Admitted for
regular hearing and recovery of fine was ordered to remain stayed during
the pendency of the appeal. On an application having been filed by the
appellant/accused for suspension of his sentence of imprisonment during
the pendency of appeal, the remaining sentence of the appellant was
ordered to be suspended during the pendency of appeal on 26.7.2016.
3. Now the case has come up for regular hearing.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
State counsel besides going through the record.
5. At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellant states
that he does not challenge the judgment on the point of conviction but
wants to make submissions with regard to sentence.
6. I find that the judgment passed by the trial Court is quite
detailed and well reasons and does not suffer from any illegality or
infirmity, which might have called for interference. The witness of
recovery, namely, PW3 ASI Bhupinder Kumar, the Investigating Officer
of the case as well as PW1 HC Kamaljit Singh have fully supported the
prosecution story with regard to accused having been found in conscious
2 of 5
possession of 18 kgs. of poppy husk on the date, time and place as per the
prosecution story. They were cross-examined at length on behalf of the
accused but they stuck to their guns and could not be shattered on material
points. No previous enmity between them and the accused - convict has
been alleged or proved prompted by which they might have involved the
accused in this case wrongly and deposed against him falsely to secure his
conviction. The account given by these PWs come out to be worthy of
reliance.
7. From the statement of PW2 HC Munni Lal, the then MHC of
Police Amloh and PW5 Constable Manpreet Singh, who had taken the
sample parcel to the office of Chemical Examiner, Punjab, it comes out
that no tampering with the case property including the sample parcel had
taken place and the sample parcel had reached at the office of Chemical
Examiner, Punjab with seal intact. The report from the office of Chemical
Examiner also goes to show that. This report further reveals that on
analysis, the sample parcel was found to be that of poppy husk. The
remaining evidence adduced by the prosecution corroborates its version.
The accused could not render any reasonable or plausible explanation for
his alleged false implication nor could he account for in possession of
poppy husk without any licence or permit thereby showing that he was in
conscious possession of such contraband. The trial Court was justified in
convicting the accused for the offence under Section 15 of the Act.
8. As far as the sentence part is concerned, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant has contended that the appellant/accused has
already undergone 7 months and 21 days of imprisonment in this case;
3 of 5
although he is shown to be involved in another case in the custody
certificate but details thereof are not mentioned and it is no where
reflected that he has been convicted in some other case under the NDPS
Act; similarly his conviction in any other case is not reflected. He has
further contended that the appellant is old person of 60 years, a poor man
and only earning member of the family and the recovery involved in this
case amounts to non-commercial quantity, which does not attract
minimum sentence, as such a lenient view in the matter be taken.
9. Whereas learned State counsel has contended that sentence
awarded to the appellant is not on higher side and does not call for any
reduction.
10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find that
the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellant deserves to be
accepted. The contraband recovered from the appellant/accused, the same
being quite less than commercial quanity. Furthermore, the appellant has
already undergone actual sentence of 7 months and 21 days out of the
substantive sentence awarded to him.
11. In that way, while upholding the judgment of conviction
passed against the appellant/accused, the order of sentence is modified
and his sentence is reduced to one already undergone by him in this case.
Whereas, the fine part is kept as intact. The appellant/accused is directed
to deposit the amount of fine in the trial Court within one month from
today and in case of default of payment of fine, the appellant/accused
shall be liable to be taken into custody and made to undergo sentence in
default of payment of fine by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib
4 of 5
by issuing Non-bailable warrants of arrest against him.
12. As such the appeal challenging the impugned judgment
stands disposed of with above modification in sentence.
Intimation be sent to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh
Sahib for necessary compliance.
24.8.2022 (H.S.MADAAN)
Brij JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking : No / Yes
Whether reportable : No / Yes
5 of 5
