AMRIK SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challengethis Criminal Appeal is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.02.2003 passed by learned Special Court (N.D. & P.S.), Patiala, whereby the appellant was held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychoptopric Substances Act, 1985 (for gravity "the Act") and ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- and in default thereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. The fine was paid before the learned trial Court on 14.02.2003 itself.

(2.) At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he did not want to challenge the conviction of the appellant, however, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence awarded to the appellant was on higher side. In support of his contention, he submitted that in the year 1993, the appellant found in possession of 32.500 kilograms of poppy husk without any permit or licence. He remained on bail during the pendency of trial and the present appeal but he never misused the said concession. The appellant was neither required nor involved in any other case. The quantity of the contraband allegedly recovered from the appellant was falling within the ambit of non-commercial. It would not be desirable to send the appellant to jail after about 15 years of releasing him on bail. He further submitted that now the appellant has joined the main stream of the life and, therefore, some concession in substantive sentence should be extended to him.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the learned trial Court had already taken a lenient view while awarding the sentence. He further submitted that if the substantive sentence of the appellant is reduced to any extent, in that eventuality, there is every likelihood of his indulging in nefarious activities of retaining the Narcotic Drugs and Psychoptropic Substances. However, he fairly conceded that in view of the affidavit of Superintendent, Central Jail, Patiala, the appellant is neither required nor involved in any other case. He further conceded that the petitioner had suffered incarceration for five months and twenty six days.