Punjab-Haryana High Court
Roop Singh vs State Of Hry on 30 January, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:012370
CRA-S-894-SB-2005 2024:PHHC:012370
- 1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
115 CRA-S-894-SB-2005
Date of decision: 30.01.2024
Roop Singh
...Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
*****
Present : Mr. S.S.Siao, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
*****
AMAN CHAUDHARY, J.
1. Challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment/order dated
19.04.2004/20.04.2004, passed by the learned Special Judge, Faridabad, whereby
the appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
four years alongwith fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of the same, to
further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, for the offence punishable
under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,
1985 (for short 'the Act').
2. Succinctly, the facts are that on 24.11.2002, when Sub Inspector Om
Parkash alongwith other police officials were on patrolling duty in connection
with the checking of miscreants and suspected vehicles, they apprehended the
accused with some contraband which was wrapped in a wax paper. After
apprising him about his rights, search was conducted in the presence of a
Gazetted Officer and recovery of 200 gram of charas was effected. The requisite
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:012370
CRA-S-894-SB-2005 2024:PHHC:012370
- 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. No evidence was led in defence.
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 very outset, gives up the
challenge to his conviction and prays for reducing the sentence to the period
already undergone it being 02 years, 03 months and 24 days, on the ground that
he is not involved in any other case under this Act; belongs to the poor strata of
society; sole breadwinner of the family; having children of marriageable age;
recovery was non-commercial; never misused the concession of bail and has been
facing the agony of protracted trial for the last 22 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
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:012370
CRA-S-894-SB-2005 2024:PHHC:012370
- 3-
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 dated 30.01.2024 issued by the Deputy Superintendent,
District Prison, Gurugram.
9. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the record with
their able assistance.
10. Evidently, PW-8 SI Om Parkash had deposed that the
accused-appellant was apprehended and found to be in conscious possession of
the alleged contraband, which fact was corroborated by PW-3 DSP Raj Singh. As
per Ex.DH, proved by the Chemical Examiner, contends of contraband were
opined to be 'charas'. 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
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:012370
CRA-S-894-SB-2005 2024:PHHC:012370
- 4-
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 since long; successfully warded off his crime-proneness-an evident
learning of a lesson; his socio-economic circumstances, this Court finds
extenuation 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 19.04.2004/20.04.2004 is modified to
the aforesaid extent and as such, the present petition stands partly allowed.
(AMAN CHAUDHARY)
JUDGE
30.01.2024
hemant
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No
Whether reportable : Yes / No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:012370
4 of 4
