Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ganga Dhar vs St Of Pb on 1 February, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:013646
CRA-S-1358-SB-2005 2024:PHHC:013646 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
124 CRA-S-1358-SB-2005 (O&M)
Date of decision: 01.02.2024
Ganga Dhar ...Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
*****
Present : Mr. Shubham Mirok, Advocate for
Mr. JS Thind, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Manipal Singh Atwal, DAG, Punjab.
*****
AMAN CHAUDHARY, J.
1. Challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment/order dated
15.01.2005, passed by the learned Judge Special Court, Amritsar, whereby the
appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
four years alongwith fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of the same, to
further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, for the offence punishable
under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
(for short 'the Act').
2. Succinctly the facts are that on 11.08.2001, when SI Manjit Singh
alongwith other police officials were on patrolling duty in connection with the
checking of miscreants and suspected vehicles, they apprehended the accused in
possession of a file cover and white cloth. After apprising them of their rights,
search was conducted in the presence of a Gazetted Officer and recovery of 1 Kg
of opium was effected. The requisite samples were drawn and sealed. Ruqa was
sent, on the basis of which, an FIR was registered.
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:013646
CRA-S-1358-SB-2005 2024:PHHC:013646 -2-
3. After completion of investigation, final report under Section 173
Cr.P.C. was presented in the Court against the accused. On finding a prima facie
case, charges were framed against him, to which he pleaded not guilty and
claimed trial.
4. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as 4
witnesses. Thereafter, the statement of the accused was recorded under Section
313 Cr.P.C., whereby incriminating evidence was put to him, which he denied.
He pleaded innocence and false implication.
5. The trial Court, after appreciating the evidence, came to the
conclusion that prosecution has proved its case beyond any reasonable doubt, and
accordingly convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in para No.1
above.
6. Aggrieved appellant is before this Court.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant, at the outset, gives up the
challenge to his conviction and prays for reducing the sentence to the period
already undergone, it being 1 year, 9 months and 5 days, on the ground that he is
not involved in any other case under this Act; belongs to the poor strata of
society; sole bread winner of the family; never misused the concession of bail
and has been facing the agony of protracted trial for the last 23 years.
8. Learned State counsel opposes the appeal on the ground that the trial
Court after evaluating the evidence has rightly convicted the appellant and the
sentence awarded to him cannot be said to be excessive, therefore, he prays for
the dismissal of the present appeal. He, however, affirms the fact of the non-
involvement of the appellant in any other case under this Act as per the custody
certificate.
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:013646
CRA-S-1358-SB-2005 2024:PHHC:013646 -3-
9. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the record with
their able assistance.
10. Evidently, PW-2 SI Manjit Singh had deposed that the accused-
appellant was apprehended and found to be in conscious possession of the
alleged contraband, which fact was corroborated by PW1-Constable Sukhdev
Singh. As per FSL report Ex.PK and Ex.PL, contents of contraband were opined
to be 'opium'. Link evidence is complete. Thus, there is no scope for interference
in the findings recorded therewith and the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court.
As such, his conviction is upheld.
11. Insofar as the prayer for reducing the sentence to the period already
undergone is concerned, it would be worthwhile to make a reference to the
judgment in S.K. Sakkar @ Mannan vs. State of West Bengal, (2021) 4 SCC
483, wherein the accused was convicted under Section 20 of the Act and Hon'ble
the Supreme Court reduced the sentence of five years to 2 years, 4 months and 16
days, by considering that the occurrence took place in 1997 and he was not a
habitual offender, rather a first-time convict.
12. Furthermore, in Naresh Kumar vs. State of Haryana in CRA-S-
796-SB-2005, decided on 24.02.2023, the sentence of the appellant i.e. 3 years and
6 months, convicted under Section 15 of the Act, was modified to the period
undergone i.e. 8 months and 25 days already, by holding that no useful purpose
will be served by sending him to jail after 22 years from the date of incident, in
view of the fact that he was only about 28 years old at that time.
13. Humanistically viewing, the appellant having suffered the ignominy
of trial for a long time; his socio-economic circumstances and evidently learnt a
lesson by successfully warding off his crime-proneness in life, extenuation is
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:013646
CRA-S-1358-SB-2005 2024:PHHC:013646 -4-
found to be implicit. Thus, it would serve the ends of justice to reduce his sentence
to the period already undergone, however, keeping the fine intact.
14. The order of sentence dated 15.01.2005 is modified to the aforesaid
extent and as such, the present appeal stands partly allowed.
(AMAN CHAUDHARY)
JUDGE
01.02.2024
ashok
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No
Whether reportable : Yes / No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:013646
4 of 4
