The court considered the principles of sentencing, the convict's circumstances, and the provisions of Section 30 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in determining the appropriate period of imprisonment in default of payment of fine.

Sanjay Karol, Judge (Oral)

Appellant-convict Kunj Lal, hereinafter referred to as the accused, has assailed the judgment dated 31.3.2008, passed by Special Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, in Sessions Trial No.40/2006, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh v. Kunj Lal, 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 simple 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 two years. 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.

4. Despite limited submission, we ourselves, in order to ascertain as to whether judgment of conviction is within the settled parameters of law or not, minutely examined the record.

5. Having perused the testimony of witnesses of recovery of contraband substance from the conscious possession of the convict, we do not find any illegality, infirmity or error in the findings returned by the trial Court. On 16.11.2005 at 9 p.m., convict was found to be in possession of contraband substance i.e. charas weighing 6 kgs and 250 grams. It was kept by the convict in a bag. Recovery was effected by SI Dorje Ram, Incharge Police Post, Bhuntar, alongwith other police officials, when they had laid a Naka near Dalashni Bridge. The convict was informed of his statutory rights. The contraband substance was weighed; samples drawn; sealed and seized by the police officials and thereafter deposited with the MHC who sent the samples for chemical analysis to the Forensic Science Laboratory. All papers of search, seizure and recovery were prepared in accordance with the settled principles of law. Report of the chemical analysis confirmed the recovered contraband substance to be charas.

6. We find factum of recovery also to have been brought to the notice of superior officer in accordance with law. FIR No.565 of 2005 dated 16.11.2005 (Ex.PW-6/A) was also registered promptly at Police Station, Kullu, on the basis of Rukka (Ex.PW-5/B). Seized sample and the remaining stuff were sealed and not tampered with at all. The sealed samples were opened only in the Laboratory at the time of conducting chemical analysis.

7. As such, prosecution has been able to establish recovery of charas, from the conscious possession of the convict, beyond reasonable doubt, by leading clear, cogent, consistent and convincing piece of evidence.

8. Coming back to the sole submission made by learned counsel, we are of the considered view that the Act itself provides minimum sentence of imprisonment and fine. We cannot find any infirmity with that part of the sentence, whereby convict is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, for having committed an offence punishable under Section 20 of the Act. But however, finding favour with the submission of the learned counsel that convict, a poor person, perhaps may not be in a position to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, we reduce the sentence of imprisonment, which the convict is required to undergo in the event of default of payment of fine.

9. With profit, we may extract the following passages on the question of se