BALI RAJ Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant-convict Bali Raj, hereinafter referred to as the accused, has assailed the judgment dated 8.10.2010/28.10.2010, passed by Special Judge, Chamba Division, Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, in Sessions Trial No.7 of 2010., titled as State of Himachal Pradesh v. Bali Raj, whereby he stands convicted for having committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and pay fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default thereof to further undergo imprisonment for a period of one year.

(2.) The judgment stands assailed by the convict by taking several grounds in the appeal.

(3.) However, at the time of hearing Mr. Anup Chitkara, learned counsel for the appellant, confined the challenge only on the question of period of imprisonment, which the convict has to undergo, in the event of default of payment of fine by him. According to the learned counsel, convict is a poor man and cannot deposit fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-. As such, he wants the Court to reduce the period of imprisonment from one year. In support of his contention, learned counsel has referred to and relied upon Shahejadkhan Mahebubkhan Pathan v. State of Gujarat, 2013 1 SCC 570; and Shantilal v. State of M.P., 2007 11 SCC 243.