Ravinder Singh vs State Of Punjab
2022 Latest Caselaw 15490 P&H

CRA-S-3340-SB-2014 (O&M)                                                             1


        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                       CHANDIGARH


                                                   CRA-S-3340-SB-2014 (O&M)
                                                    Date of decision : 01.12.2022

Ravinder Singh                                                        ...Appellant

                                      Versus

State of Punjab                                                      ...Respondent


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN

Present:-    Mr. J. S. Saneta, Advocate
             for the appellant.

             Mr. Shubham Kaushik, DAG, Punjab.

ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J. (Oral)

Challenge laid in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction dated

15.07.2014 and order of sentence of the even date, passed by the trial Court,

whereby the appellant was convicted for offence punishable under Section 15 of

the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

(for short 'NDPS Act') and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a

period of 03 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 30,000/- with default clause.

Brief facts of the case are that on 24.08.2011, a police party headed

by ASI Dilbagh Singh was on a patrol duty and at about 02:15 PM, when they

were in village Mankheri, a person was seen coming on a rickshaw rehri loaded

with bags wrapped with polythene sheet and on seeing the police party, he

stopped the rickshaw and tried to run towards, however, was apprehended by the

police. On enquiry, the said person disclosed his name as 'Ravinder Singh @

Bindri' i.e. the present appellant. The accused was apprised of his right to be

searched either before a Gazetted Officer or before a Magistrate, to which, he

reposed faith in the Investigating Officer ASI Dilbagh Singh. Thereafter, the

search of the rickshaw was conducted and to plastic bags containing poppy husk

1 of 3

were recovered. Two samples of 250 gms. each from each bag were separately

taken and on weighing the remaining poppy husk, it came to be 19 kgs. 500 gms.

and 14 kgs. 500 gms. Remaining case property was put into the same bags and

sealed with the seal 'DS'. Thereafter, ruqa was sent to police station for

registration of the FIR. The accused was arrested and on completion of the

investigation, the Challan was presented against the accused in the Court.

On presentation of Challan, finding a prima facie case, the trial

Court framed the charges under Section 15 of the NDPS Act against the accused,

to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

In trial, the prosecution as well as the accused led their respective

evidence and after hearing both the parties and appreciating the evidence and

material brought on record, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the

appellant/accused as noticed above. Hence, the present appeal.

It is worth noticing that during the pendency of the present appeal,

the sentence of the appellant was suspended by this Court on 29.05.2015

considering the fact that he has already undergone substantive portion of his

sentence.

At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellant-accused has

submitted that he does not contest the findings of the trial Court recorded on

merits of the case and he would feel satisfied in case the sentence of the appellant

is reduced to the one already undergone by him.

Learned counsel for the appellant-accused further submitted that the

appellant is of young age; it is his first offence and he has already faced the agony

and trauma of protracted trial for a period of more than 10 years. It is further

submitted that the appellant has already undergone a period of 11 months and 23

days out of total sentence of 03 years and he has never misused the concession of

suspension of his sentence, which shows that he has improved his conduct and has

reformed himself. It is further submitted that keeping in view the above facts, no

2 of 3

useful purpose would be served by sending the appellant in custody furthermore

as he has his own family to support.

Learned counsel for the State has filed the custody certificate and

has opposed the reduction of sentence of the appellant-accused. A perusal of the

custody certificate shows that he is not involved in any other case.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the

arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant, this Court is of the view

that it is a fit case wherein the sentence awarded to the appellant can be reduced to

the period already undergone by him. Our criminal justice system is to reform the

offenders and to make them see and follow the right path. Appellant-accused is a

young person and he has to look after his family. The appellant has faced the

agony of protracted trial for a period of more than 10 years and during the said

period, he was never involved in any other case, which shows a remarkable

improvement in his conduct. He has already undergone a sufficient period of

sentence. As such, it would be just if his sentence is reduced to the period already

undergone by him.

Accordingly, while upholding the impugned judgment of conviction

dated 15.07.2014, the present appeal is partly allowed and the sentence awarded

to the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him. The

imposition of fine of Rs.30,000/- is also upheld.

The appellant is directed to deposit the aforesaid fine within a period

of 04 months from today, failing which this appeal shall be deemed to be

dismissed.

Bail/surety bonds of the appellant be discharged, accordingly.

01.12.2022                                         (ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN)
Waseem Ansari                                                JUDGE

                Whether speaking/reasoned                Yes/No

                Whether reportable                       Yes/No

                                       3 of 3