GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA, J. - (1.) THEIS appeal is directed against a judgment dated 12th June, 2002, holding the accused Hari Chand Singh guilty under section 21 of the N.D.P.S. Act, and an order dated 14th June, 2002, by which the convict was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and was also directed to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Hooghly, in N.D.P.S. Case No. 9 of 1998.
(2.) MR . Chatterjee, learned Counsel appearing in support of the appeal submitted that grave injustice was done to the appellant by the judgment and order under challenge. He drew our attention to the reasoning adopted by the learned Trial Judge while fixing the quantum of punishment which is as follows : " Heard the convict. The learned Advocate for the convict has submitted that only four puriyes of heroin, which is a small quantity, has been recovered from the possession of the convict. So, the convict is liable to be convicted with RI. for a term which may extend to six months or with a fine which may extend to six months or with a fine which may extend to Rs. 10,000/- with both under section 21(a) of the N.D.P.S. Act. Heard also the learned Public Prosecutor-in-charge of this case. It is found from the record that the charge of this case against the convict had already been framed under section 21 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985. So, the submission of the learned Advocate for the convict is not tenable at this stage because of the fact that he has hot prayed for alteration of charge under section 21(a) of the N.D.P.S. Act, I do not agree with the learned Advocate for the convict. In this connection it may be mentioned that in a Delhi case, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Nandi Francis Nwazor v. Narcotics Control Bureau 1994 Drug Cases 146 reported in 1995 Cr. L.J. 1665 (Delhi) (S.C. Jain) the conviction of offence of unauthorised possession of heroin was upheld. The instant case is also of similar nature. In recent years such type of offence in our country has been increasing to a great extent for which our society at large has been facing a problem and in my opinion, it is a heinous offence. So, no lenient view can be taken in this case. So, the convict is to be punished under section 21 of the N.D.P.S. Act wherein it is laid down that minimum punishment is prescribed imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to 20 years and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than Rs. 1,00,000/- but which may extend to Rs. 2,00,000/-. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the young age and the economic condition of the convict, I am inclined to impose the minimum penalty of this section. Therefore, the convict Hari Chand Singh is convicted under section 21 of the N. D. P.S. Act and sentenced to suffer R.I. for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- i.d. to suffer R.I. for one year more under section 235 (2) of the Cr. P. C. The convict is sent to prison for undergoing sentence by warrant." He also drew our attention to the following portion of the judgment : "In this case chemical examiner's report has been marked as Ext. 3 from which it transpires that the gross weight of the recovered heroin amounts to 0.5558 g. which according to the recent amended Act falls in the category of small quantity vide Sl. 56 of Table referred to under section 2 sub-clauses (vii-a) and (xxii-a). He has also stated in his report that the sample contains heroin to the extent of 46.95% w/w. Hence the accused is for punishment under section 21(a) of the recently amended N.D.P.S. Act."
(3.) HE also drew our attention to the written complaint wherein the following allegations were made : "I accordingly in presence of local witnesses made a search of his person and found one safety matches containing four (4 puriyas heroin powder wrapped in multi-coloured papers and 30(thirty) rupees as sale proceed money found in the right hand grip of the accused person." ;