- (1.) BARKAT Ali Zaidi, J. The appellant-accused has been convicted under Section 20 (b) (ii) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and sentenced to 10 year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. Hundred Thou sand, in default, further imprisonment of six months. The judgment dated 3. 11. 2001 was passed in Sessions Trial No. 75 of 2001 by Special Judge (N. D. P. S. Act), Kanpur Nagar.
(2.) THE accused was convicted on the basis of recovery of 200 grams of Charas. The Counsel for the accused has refrained from arguing on merits, and has pointed out that only 200 grams Charas was recovered from the accused, which, under the new provision is much less than the commercial quantity (the case is governed by the old provision) and the accused has already spent 7 year and 5 months in Jail. lt was further pointed out by the Counsel for the accused applicant that the accused had been granted bail pending appeal but he could not furnish sureties and could also not pay the fine because of his poverty and because of his lack of resources and since then has been languishing in jail. It has also been pointed out by the learned Counsel that the sentence imposed by the trial Judge is very harsh and severe, in view of the small quantity of contraband material, recovered from the accused.
(3.) WE feel inclined to fall in line with the suggestion of the contention of the learned Counsel. Sentencing undoubtedly is justice systems cindrella. No reasons have been assigned by the Judge, why he chose to award the maximum sentence of ten year to the accused. It has all the appearance of a peremptory rough shod order.;