CRIMINAL APPEAL None on 11 June 2000

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH

Criminal Appeal No.261-SB of 2002

Date of decision: 28[th] May, 2010

Mohan Lal

State of Haryana

Versus

… Appellant

… Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

Present: Mr. D.R. Punia, Advocate for the appellant.Mr. Manish Deswal, Deputy Advocate General, Haryanafor the State.

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)

Present appeal has been filed by Mohan Lal, who was namedas an accused in case FIR No.70 dated 11.06.2000 registered at PoliceStation Cheeka under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and PsychotropicSubstances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Act’).

Case of the prosecution is that on 11[th] June, 2000, onekilogram of opium was recovered from possession of the appellant. Thatbeing of non-commercial quantity, the Court of Special Judge, Kaithal videits judgment dated 25[th] January, 2002 held the appellant guilty of anoffence punishable under Section 18(b) of the Act and vide a separateorder dated 29[th] January, 2002 sentenced him to undergo rigorousimprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for oneyear.

Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that on 11[th] June,2000, ASI Brij Mohan, along with his companion police officials, waspresent in front of Government Girls School, Guhla Road in connectionwith patrol duty and crime detection. At that time, one person was spottedcoming from Cheeka Chowk side and he was carrying a plastic bag in hisright hand. Seeing the police party, that person retracted his steps, whichcaused a suspicion and he was apprehended. On interrogation, thatperson disclosed his name as Mohan Lal son of Bant Ram. A notice underSection 50 of the Act was served upon the appellant and an offer wasgiven to him to get himself searched in front of a gazetted officer or aMagistrate. The accused appellant gave his consent to be searched inpresence of a gazetted officer. A consent memo to this effect wasprepared. An information was sent and DSP Guhla was requested to arriveat the spot. In response thereto, Om Parkash, DSP Guhla arrived at thespot, in whose presence search was carried, recovery was effected andthe contraband article was seized.

Prosecution examined nine witnesses.

Mr. D.R. Punia, Advocate appearing for the appellant, hassubmitted that he has gone through the impugned judgment and theevidence of the witnesses. Counsel has further submitted that he will notassail the conviction of the appellant and will accept the impugnedjudgment as it is. However, learned counsel has submitted that he willassail the order of sentence dated 29[th] January, 2002, whereby theappellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period offive years. Counsel has contended that the sentence of five years awardedto the appellant is excessive and cannot be sustained on the facts andcircumstances of the present case. Learned counsel has stated that occurrence, in the present case, had taken place in the month of June2000. A period of ten years is going to elapse and the appellant hassuffered mental pain and agony of a protracted trial. It is further stated thatthe appellant has committed no other offence before or after registration ofthe present case. He is sole breadwinner of his family and he has a largefamily to support. At the time of occurrence, the appellant was aged about33 years.

Taking into consideration age, antecedents of the appellantand the fact that he has suffered a protracted trial, this Court is of theopinion that ends of justice will be fully met in case the sentence awardedto the appellant is reduced from five years to one year nine monthsrigorous imprisonment. However, sentence of fine and default clause aremaintained.

With the observations made above, present appeal isdisposed of.

May 28, 2010rps

[KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA]JUDGE