MOHINDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Mohinder Kumar has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 29.10.2013 passed by the Judge Special Court, Ferozepur, whereby he was convicted under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act') and vide order dated 10.01.2014 was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 21/2 years along with fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Briefly the facts of the case are that on 19.6.2010 ASI Baldev Singh along with HC Bhagat Singh and other police officials was going on government vehicle bearing registration No. PB-05R-9851, which was driven by HC Krishan Lal. While they were going from bypass Hanumangarh road chowk to village Kala Tibba on link road in connection with patrolling and checking of suspected persons, a Maruti car bearing registration No. DL-080CL-3308, which was driven by the accused, was seen coming from the opposite side. On suspicion, the accused was signaled to stop the car and accused stopped the car. On checking, a plastic gatta was found in the car underneath the front seat of the car. Suspecting the same to be containing some contraband a checking was conducted. Accused was apprised that he has a legal right to opt for a search before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. The accused consented to be searched in presence of a Gazetted Officer. On search, the plastic bag was found containing 20 Kgs. of poppy husk. On presentation of challan, accused was charge-sheeted to face trial under Section 15 of the Act.

(2.) After going through the entire evidence led by the prosecution, the trial Court held the appellant guilty under Section 15 of the Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 21/2 years. At the outset learned counsel for the appellant states that he does not wish to challenge the findings of the trial Court, however, a lenient view may be taken while sentencing the accused as he has already undergone 11/2 years. Learned counsel further submits that the appellant is the only bread earner of his family and that the poppy husk which was seized from the appellant was of a non-commercial quantity being only 20 Kg.

(3.) Learned counsel for the State has, however, opposed the reduction in sentence of the appellant. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find that the poppy husk, which was seized from the appellant was only 20 Kg., which is a non-commercial quantity. The appellant has already undergone more than one year of actual sentence.