VED PARKASH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant appeal has been preferred by Ved Parkash son of Hans Raj Aggarwal, whereby he has assailed his conviction and sentence awarded by learned Judge, Special Court, Sangrur. He stands convicted under Sections 18/20 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substancs Act (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act"). He was ordered to undergo RI for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. one lac, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for a period of one year under Section 20 of the Act for recovery of 1 -1/2 kg. of charas, being commercial quantity. He has also been sentenced to undergo RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/ -, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for a period of two months under Section 18 of the Act, for having in his possession 500 grams of opium.

(2.) BOTH the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(3.) THE case as set out in the FIR is that SI Jagjit Singh along with his companion police officials was going from Nankiana Chowk towards Haripura in search of suspicious persons. When the police party reached near Rampura gate, Balbir Singh son of Karam Singh, resident of Fatehgarh appeared there. SI was having conversation with him when a person coming on a scooter was sighted, who on seeing the police party speeded up his vehicle but due to over speed, scooter slipped. The scooter as well as the driver both fell down. The accused tried to run away from the spot, which raised suspicion and he was apprehended. On opening of the glove box of the scooter, two glazed envelopes were found lying therein. From one envelope opium was recovered, out of which two samples of 10 grams each were taken. On weighing the remaining bulk was found to be 480 grams. From the other envelope charas was recovered wrapped in glazed paper, out of which two samples of 10 grams each were taken and the remaining bulk was found to be 1 kg. 480 grams. The investigation culminated into submission of report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. The appellant was charged under Sections 18 & 22 of the Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.