AMRO Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall disposed of the aforementioned two appeals as the same have arisen from a common judgment and order dated 11.3.2004 passed by learned Judge, Special Court, Sangrur in case bearing FIR No.55 dated 5.6.2003 under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, the Act), registered at Police Station, Amargarh, District Sangrur.

(2.) Learned trial Court vide judgment and order dated 11.3.2004 had convicted the appellants under Section 15 of the Act and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 months and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- each and in default therefore, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 3 months each.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants, at the very outset, has submitted that in view of confession made by both the appellants before the trial Court, he does not propose to challenge the conviction on merits. However, he has submitted that taking into consideration the small quantity i.e. 26 Kegs. poppy husk recovered from the appellants, the imprisonment awarded by the trial Court is on higher side. He has, therefore, prayed that the sentence awarded to both the appellants may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. He has further submitted that as against the awarded sentence of 10 months, appellant Amro has remained in custody for 7 months and 6 days, whereas appellant Fauja Singh has remained in custody for 6 months and 9 days. There is no other case pending against both the appellants under the Act and they are suffering the agony of trial since 5.6.2003, when the FIR in question was registered against them. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the recent judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CRA-S-1426-SB of 2004 titled as Mangat Ram Versus State of Punjab decided on 6.1.2016 wherein the accused was convicted under Section 21 of the Act and sentenced by the trial Court to undergo RI for seven years. However, this Court has reduced his sentence for a period of three years.