Exercise of leniency in sentencing based on the appellant's circumstances and legal precedents.

JUDGMENT

Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral) - CRM-16899-2022

1. This is an application filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for fixing the actual date of hearing in the main appeal which is stated to be admitted vide order dated 15.12.2014.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant has submitted that the applicant-appellant was convicted vide judgment and order of sentence dated 17.11.2004 under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months, out of which, he has already undergone two months of actual custody. It is further submitted that the applicant-appellant is suffering from heart ailments and he wishes to go to his daughter who is residing in Canada for his treatment and thus, prays that the present application be allowed and the main appeal be heard. Notice in the application.

3. On advance notice, Mr. Sarabjit S. Cheema, AAG, Punjab, appears and accepts notice on behalf of the non-applicant/State of Punjab and has submitted that he has no objection in case the present application is allowed and the main appeal is heard today itself for final disposal.

4. In view of the aforesaid facts and no objection from the opposite side, the present application is allowed and the main appeal is taken on Board today itself for final disposal.

Main case

5. Challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment dated 17.11.2014 passed by the Judge, Special Court, Patiala, whereby the present appellant has been convicted under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act of 1985") in FIR No.44 dated 29.06.2012 registered under Section 18 of the Act of 1985 at Police Station Sanaur.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that although the appellant is not challenging his conviction but however, has argued that the appellant would be satisfied in case, a lenient view is taken with respect to the sentence which has been awarded to him. In this regard, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the FIR in the present case is of the year 2012 and thus, the appellant has suffered agony of trial/bail/appeal for all these years and the appellant was granted the concession of bail and he has never misused that concession. It is further submitted that the appellant is about 44 years of age and he is the sole bread winner of the family. The appellant has already undergone 2 months of actual custody out of the sentence of 6 months rigorous imprisonment awarded to him. It is also submitted that the appellant is not involved in any other case. It is further submitted that the appellant is suffering from a heart disease and thus, wishes to go to Canada for treatment and regarding the same, the Medical Certificate (Annexure A-1) has been produced.

7. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon judgments of co-ordinate Benches of this Court in CRA-S- 3505-SB-2017 decided on 07.10.2017 titled as Rupesh Kumar @ Kala vs. State of Punjab" reported as 2017(4) RCR (Criminal) 668 and in Crl. Revision No.1239 of 2011 decided on 12.01.2018 titled as "Ajay Kumar and another vs. State of Punjab", reported as 2018(1) Law Herald 514.

8. Learned counsel for the State has stated that the judgment of the Court below has been passed after considering the entire evidence and material on record. The other factual aspects have not been rebutted by the learned counsel for the State. He has also produced on record the custody certificate of the appellant, which is taken on record, as per which, the period of custody, as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant, stands reiterated.

9. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and has gone through the paper book. The brief facts of the present case are that on 29.06.2012, ASI Sukhdev Singh along with poli