2017 (3) TMI 1421 - HC - Indian Laws

Offence punishable under Section 21 (c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Held that - In terms of the affidavits that have been filed by the learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, it is to be noticed that Avtar Singh alias Tari (appellant No.1) has undergone actual imprisonment of nine years, eleven months and five days as on 27.02.2017. He has availed of parole for a period of one year, two months and twenty-three days. However, he did not misuse the concession of parole that was granted. He was also convicted for the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act in the same transaction and he filed criminal appeal, i.e. CRA-S No. 1180-SB of 2010, in this Court and he has undergone his sentence in the said case. There is no other case registered against him. Jassa Singh alias Dodhi (appellant No.2) has undergone actual imprisonment of nine years, nine months and nine days as on 27.02.2017. He has availed of parole for a period of one year, four months and nineteen days. The concession of parole that was granted to him was not misused by him. There is no other case registered against him. No remission has been given to the appellants in view of the provisions of Section 32 of the NDPS Act. Therefore, the period of imprisonment that is mentioned is actual imprisonment and despite being in custody for a long period, the appeal of the appellants could not mature for hearing. Therefore, the appellants were only carriers and have not been involved in any other case and during imprisonment they did not misuse the concession of parole that was granted, besides, their appeal has not matured for hearing even though they have undergone substantial period of their imprisonments, it would be just and expedient to reduce their sentences of imprisonments to eleven years and the amount of fine to ₹ 1,00,000/- each and in default of payment thereof, undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. False Implication
2. Conscious Possession of Heroin
3. Quantum of Sentence
4. Conduct and History of the Appellants

Detailed Analysis:

1. False Implication:
The appellants contended that they were falsely implicated and no incriminating article was recovered from them. They argued that they were picked up from their respective houses and the case was planted on them. In their defense, they examined HC Mohinder Singh (DW1) and Bakhshish Singh, Sarpanch of village Usmanwala (DW2). However, the court found no substantial evidence to support the claim of false implication. The learned Judge, Special Court, Ferozepur noted that nothing came on record to show that the huge recovery was planted on the appellants.

2. Conscious Possession of Heroin:
The appellants were charged with being in conscious possession of 26 kgs of heroin without any valid permit or license, thereby committing an offence punishable under Section 21 (c) of the NDPS Act. The prosecution established its case by examining five witnesses and presenting documentary evidence. The Intelligence Officer, Ravi Kant Pawar (PW2), received specific information about the transportation of narcotic drugs and set up a check-post with the Punjab Police. The appellants were intercepted and found with the contraband. The court held that the appellants were in conscious possession of the heroin and convicted them under Section 21 (c) of the NDPS Act.

3. Quantum of Sentence:
The primary issue in the appeal was the quantum of sentence. The appellants argued that they were merely carriers of the contraband and that the sentence imposed was unduly harsh. The prosecution maintained that the quantity of heroin recovered was substantial and warranted the fifteen-year imprisonment imposed by the trial court. The court considered the fact that the appellants were carriers and noted that the NCB officials made no effort to trace the origin of the heroin or the intended recipient. Given these circumstances, the court found it just and expedient to reduce the sentence.

4. Conduct and History of the Appellants:
The court took into account the conduct and history of the appellants. Both appellants had undergone substantial periods of imprisonment and had not misused the concession of parole granted to them. Avtar Singh alias Tari (appellant No.1) had undergone actual imprisonment of nine years, eleven months, and five days, while Jassa Singh alias Dodhi (appellant No.2) had undergone nine years, nine months, and nine days. Neither appellant had any other cases registered against them. Considering these factors, the court deemed it appropriate to reduce their sentences.

Conclusion:
The appeal was disposed of with the conviction of the appellants being maintained. However, the sentences of imprisonment were modified and reduced to eleven years, and the amount of fine was reduced to ?1,00,000/- each. In default of payment, the defaulting convict would undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year. The court also ordered the disposal of the contraband in accordance with the law and required a compliance report to be filed before the Judge, Special Court, Ferozepur.