Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ashok Kumar vs State Of Punjab on 6 May, 2022
CRA-S-2173-SB-2013(O&M) -:1:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRA-S-2173-SB-2013(O&M)
Date of decision:-6.5.2022
Ashok Kumar
...Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S.MADAAN
Present: Mr.S.S. Gill, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr.Anmol Singh Sandhu, AAG, Punjab.
****
H.S. MADAAN, J.
1. Appellant/accused Ashok Kumar, resident of village
Brahman Majra, P.S. Ghagga, District Patiala along with his co-accused
Balwinder Singh was tried by Judge, Special Court, Patiala in case FIR
No.432 dated 21.9.2009 for an offence under Section 15 of Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as
'the Act'), Police Station Kotwali.
2. As per the prosecution story, on 21.9.2009, a police party
headed by ASI Harpreet Singh while being present at T-point Banna
Naddi near Shish Mehal Colony, Patiala was checking vehicles and during
that intercepted one Uno car bearing registration No.DL-9CA-7421
coming from Sanauri bus stand side. The car was being driven by
appellant/accused Ashok Kumar with co-accused Balwinder Singh also
sitting therein. The search of car was conducted as per rules and from the
dicky of the car a bag containing poppy husk was found. After drawing
1 of 4
two samples of 100 gms. each therefrom, the remaining poppy husk on
being weighed came out to be 44 kgs. 800 gms. The sample and
remainder were converted into sealed parcels and were taken into police
possession. The ruqa was sent to the police station, on the basis of which
formal FIR was registered. Accused were arrested in this case. During the
investigation, the sample parcel was sent to the office of Chemical
Examiner, Punjab and as per report received therefrom, it was found to be
that of poppy husk. On completion of investigation, accused were sent up
to face trial.
3. On conclusion of trial vide judgment dated 7.5.2013, the
accused/appellant along with his co-accused were convicted in that case
for an offence under Section 15 of NDPS Act and vide order of even date,
they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 years and to
pay a fine of `5,000/- each and in default thereof to further undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each.
4. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and
order of sentence (supra), the accused/appellant Ashok Kumar had
preferred the present appeal before this Court, which was put up on
2.7.2013 when it was Admitted for regular hearing and recovery of fine
was ordered to be 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 15.12.2015. Now the case has come up for
regular hearing.
2 of 4
5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
State counsel besides going through the record.
6. 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.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended
that the appellant/accused was of young age of 32-33 years at the time of
recovery and more than 11 years have elapsed therefrom; he is married
having two children; he is only earning member of the family and he is a
first offender. He further contended that the appellant/accused has already
undergone imprisonment of 2 years, 4 months and 13 days, which
includes custody as under trial of 2 months and 3 days and post conviction
period of 2 years, 2 months and 10 days as per the custody certificate filed
by the State counsel and the recovery involved in this case amounts to
non-commercial quantity, as such a lenient view in the matter be taken.
8. Whereas learned State counsel has contended that sentence
awarded to the appellant is not on higher side and does not call for any
reduction.
9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find that
the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellant deserves to be
accepted for various reasons. Firstly, the contraband recovered from the
appellant/accused amounts to non-commercial quantity. Secondly, the
appellant is not shown to have any past criminal record. Similarly, there is
nothing on record to show that he had indulged in any criminal activity
after suspension of his remaining sentence and releasing him on bail
3 of 4
during the pendency of the appeal. Furthermore, he has already undergone
actual sentence of 2 years, 4 months and 13 days out of the substantive
sentence awarded to him.
10. 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 may 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.
11. As such the appeal challenging the impugned judgment stand
disposed of with above modification in sentence.
Since the main appeal stands disposed of with modification in
sentence, the miscellaneous applications, if any stand disposed of
accordingly.
Necessary intimation be sent to Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Patiala for necessary compliance.
6.5.2022 (H.S.MADAAN)
Brij JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking : No / Yes
Whether reportable : No / Yes
4 of 4
