Point of Law: Accused of an offence under Act shall not be released on bail during trial unless mandatory conditions provided in Section 37 are satisfied.

JUDGMENT :

Satyen Vaidya, J.

By way of instant appeal, the appellant-State has assailed the sentence imposed upon convict/respondent by learned Special Judge-II, Kullu, H.P. vide order dated 01.04.2019 passed in Sessions Trial No. 10 of 2017 on the ground of its inadequacy.

2. The respondent was charged for commission of offences under Sections 18 and 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, ‘the NDPS Act) by learned Special Judge-II, Kullu with the allegations that on 4.9.2016 at about 11.10 p.m. the respondent was found in exclusive and conscious possession of 475 grams of cannabis/charas and 48 grams of opium unauthorisedly while travelling in Bus No.HP-19B-6341.

3. The prosecution examined seven witnesses. On 01.04.2019, respondent pleaded guilty and on the same day, learned trial Court convicted the respondent for offences under Sections 18 and 20 of the ND&PS Act in the following terms:

“After giving time for reflection, accused again expressed his desire to plead guilty. Since the accused has been given sufficient time for reflection regarding his desire to plead guilty, the Court is fully satisfied that the accused is pleading guilty voluntarily without any inducement, threat or promise from any quarter. Separate statement of the accused that he is pleading guilty voluntarily also recorded. Thus, on having fully satisfied that the accused is pleading guilty voluntarily, he is convicted for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 18 and 20 of the NDPS Act. Be listed for hearing on quantum of sentence after respite”.

4. The respondent was heard on quantum of sentence. Considering the fact that respondent was first offender and sole bread earner of his family as also the chances of his reformation, learned trial Court took a lenient view and sentenced the respondent as under:

The respondent-convict was found to have suffered the custody w.e.f. 04.09.2016 to 02.01.2017 i.e. for a total period of three months and twenty-seven days, therefore, the sentence imposed upon the respondent was considered as undergone. The respondent also deposited the fine amount.

5. The appellant-State has challenged the sentence imposed upon the respondent as inadequate. It is submitted that learned Special Judge has not taken judicious view of the matter. The respondent was found in conscious possession of intermediate quantity of charas and opium. The maximum awardable sentence for each of such offence was imprisonment upto 10 years with fine extending upto Rs.1,00,000/-. The sentence imposed upon the respondent is alleged to be against the object of NDPS Act. It is further submitted that the sentence imposed upon the respondent is in no manner proportionate to the crime committed by him.

6. Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that respondent is a Japanese citizen and has not been able to visit his country and family since 2016 on account of the pendency of present appeal. It is also submitted that learned Special Judge had imposed the sentence upon respondent after considering all the relevant mitigating factors. The respondent is stated to be first offender and the ground of his being sole bread earner in the family has been reiterated.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully.

8. Noticeably, the respondent has not raised any challenge to his conviction for offences under Sections 18 & 20 of the NDPS Act at any stage. It being so, the only question for consideration before this Court is regarding the adequacy of s