MOHINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mohinder Singh son of Nazar Singh, resident of village Ghaniawala, P.S. Sadar Kotkapura has filed the present appeal against judgment dated 17.2.2004 and order dated 19.2.2004 passed by learned Special Judge, Moga in case FIR No.212 dated 8.9.2000 under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, the Act), registered at Police Station, City Moga, whereby he was convicted under Section 18(c) of the Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default to pay fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 months.

(2.) As per prosecution story, on 8.9.2000 when a police party headed by Inspector Ram Parkash was going on Lal Singh road and reached the gate of cremation ground, they noticed a man coming from ahead, who was holding a bag of cloth in his right hand. On seeing the police party, he became perplexed and abruptly tried to turn back. On the basis of suspicion, Inspector Ram Parkash apprehended him with the help of co-officials. On being asked, he disclosed his name as Mohinder Singh (present appellant) son of Nazar Singh. The appellant was told that some intoxicating substance was suspected in the bag. The accused was informed that he had right to get the search of bag before a gazetted officer or some Magistrate and accordingly, the accused desired to get his bag searched before some gazetted officer. Consent memo was prepared and a message was sent to Paramdeep Singh Sandhu, S.P. (city), Moga to come on the spot, who reached after some time in his official gypsy along with his gunman. He introduced himself to the accused being S.P. (city) and the accused was asked as to whether he wanted to be searched before him or before a Magistrate. However, the accused gave his consent for search of his bag before him. Accordingly, the search was conducted which led to recovery of opium wrapped in polythene. On weighing, a total of 2 Kgs opium was recovered from the accused which was sealed out of which a sample of 10 Gms was drawn from such opium.

(3.) After conducting full fledged trial, the appellant was convicted and sentence by learned trial Court as mentioned hereinabove. However, aggrieved with the same, the appellant has filed the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that he does not challenge the conviction. However, the appellant has undergone imprisonment for more than 21/2 years and the case relates to noncommercial quantity. Learned trial Court has awarded the sentence as if the quantity was commercial. He has further contended that as per the amendment in the Act vide Act No.9 of 2001, the punishment was to be awarded as per the amended Act. He has contended that the appellant has faced the agony of trial for the last more than 15 years as the FIR in question was registered as far back as on 8.9.2000. The appellant has undergone sufficient punishment and there is no other case pending against him.