JUDGMENT :

BY THE COURT:-

1. The instant Criminal Misc. application has been moved on behalf of the applicant in the matter of judgment dated 08.02.2021 passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Act, No.1 Naguar in Special Sessions Case No.76/2017 whereby he was convicted and sentenced to suffer maximum imprisonment of 14 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 8/15 of NDPS Act and 10 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 8/18 of NDPS Act.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the instant case are that a truck bearing registration No. RJ19 GC 2188 was intercepted by the police at the time of ‘nakabandi’ on 29.01.2017 at about 06:15 P.M. During search, a total of 38 plastic bags of poppy husk and 1 plastic polythene of opium were found in the truck. The total weight of the poppy husk was 1480 Kilograms and total weight of opium was 2.400 kilograms; both the contraband weighed above the commercial quantity demarcated under the NDPS Act, thus, the accused persons were charged for offences under Section 8/15 and Section 8/18 of NDPS Act. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

3. During trial, the prosecution examined twenty two witnesses. After evidence, the accused-appellants were examined under Section 313 CrPC, wherein they have denied the evidence and claimed false implication. After consideration of the material available on record and the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, the learned trial court convicted the accused persons under Sections 8/15 and 8/18 of NDPS Act and sentenced them accordingly, however, there was no such direction from the trial court regarding the order of running of sentences, that is, if they have to run concurrently or consecutively.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellants have been continuously in jail since 29.01.2017 and thus, the appellants have already undergone the sentence of about 6 years uptil now. It was submitted that the trial Court has not specified in the impugned order that both the sentences are to run concurrently or consecutively. He submits that the appellants are not previous convicts and there are no criminal antecedents against the appellants. Referring to the facts of the matter, it was submitted that in the interest of justice, it is necessary that the sentences awarded by the trial Court be altered and that both the sentences be directed to run concurrently.

5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the accused-appellants and submitted that in this case, recovery of 1,480 kilograms of poppy husk was made from the truck, which was being carried by the appellants and that in view of the quantity of the recovered contraband being above the commercial quantity specified in the statute, the trial Court has rightly not directed to run the sentences concurrently.

6. Heard and perused the material available on record as well as gone through the statutory provisions applicable in the matter.

7. Even after a long period of incarceration, the jail authorities conveyed to the prisoner-appellant that he has served only 6 years of sentence for an offence under Section 8/15 of NDPS Act only and the 10 years’ sentence for the offence under Section 8/18 of NDPS Act would begin after completion of sentence for offence under Section 8/15 of NDPS Act which has perturbed the appellant.

8. A perusal of Section 31 of the Criminal Procedure Code reveals that it refers to the jurisdiction of court to impose punishment when the accused is found guilty for two or more offences during a single trial. Section 31 of Cr.P.C. is reproduced below for ready reference:-

“31. Sentence in cases of conviction of several offences at one trial.—

(1) When a person is convicted at one trial of two or more offences, the Court may, subject to the provisions of section 71 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), sentence him for such offences, to the several punishments prescribed therefor which such Court is competent to inflict; su