Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurjant Singh vs State Ofpb on 25 January, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:010267
CRA-S-1505-SB-2004 2024:PHHC:010267 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
111 CRA-S-1505-SB-2004
Date of decision: 25.01.2024
Gurjant Singh ...Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
*****
Present : Mr. HS Rakhra, 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
29.05.2004, passed by the learned Judge Special Court, Moga, whereby the
appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two
years alongwith fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of the same, to
further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months, for the offence
punishable under Section 18(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act').
2. Briefly put, the facts culminating in the filing of the present appeal
are that on 24.04.2002, when ASI Surjit Singh alongwith other police officials
were on patrolling duty in connection with the checking of miscreants and
suspected vehicles, they apprehended the accused possessing a bag. After
apprising him about his rights, search was conducted in the presence of a
Gazetted Officer and recovery of 1 Kg of opium was effected. The requisite
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:010267
CRA-S-1505-SB-2004 2024:PHHC:010267 -2-
samples were drawn and sealed. Ruqa was sent on the basis of which an FIR was
registered.
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 8
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. In defence, he examined one
witness.
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 7 months and 4 days, on the ground that he is not
involved in any other case under this Act; belongs to poor strata of society; sole
bread winner of the family; recovery was above small quantity but below
commercial quantity; never misused the concession of bail and has been facing
the agony of protracted trial for the last 21 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
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:010267
CRA-S-1505-SB-2004 2024:PHHC:010267 -3-
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.
9. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the record with
their able assistance.
10. Evidently, PW-2 ASI Surjit 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 PW3-HC Chand Singh. As
per Ex.PN, proved by the Chemical Examiner, contents of contraband were
opined to be 'opium'. 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
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:010267
CRA-S-1505-SB-2004 2024:PHHC:010267 -4-
view of the fact that he was only about 28 years old at that time.
13. This Court, considering the judgments referred to above and the
mitigating circumstances as pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant, finds
that the ends of justice would be adequately served if the sentence of appellant is
reduced to the period already undergone by him, while keeping the fine intact.
14. The order of sentence dated 29.05.2004 is modified to the aforesaid
extent and as such, the present appeal stands partly allowed.
(AMAN CHAUDHARY)
JUDGE
25.01.2024
ashok
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No
Whether reportable : Yes / No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:010267
4 of 4
