The court considered the evidence, personal circumstances, and previous judgments to uphold the conviction and reduce the sentence under the NDPS Act.

JUDGMENT

Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral). - Challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment dated 15.03.2022 vide which Judge, Special Court, Bathinda had convicted the present appellant under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be referred as "the NDPS Act") and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four months and he had also been directed to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two weeks.

2. The brief background of the case is that on 11.11.2018, SI Gurinder Singh alongwith other police officials had laid a barricade in connection with checking of suspects and vehicles on the Bathinda-Dabwali, Badal Crossing and when it was about 5.30 p.m., one Alto Car bearing registration No.PB-03AX-9103 came from the side of Dabwali, which was signalled to stop, but the driver of the car immediately tried to turn back and tried to flee from the spot, but was apprehended on the basis of suspicion and on enquiry, it was learnt that it was the present appellant who was driving the car. Since, SI Gurinder Singh informed him that there was suspicion that some intoxicant substance were being carried by the appellant and therefore, made him aware of his legal right to get himself searched in the presence of Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer, but the appellant reposed confidence in him only and accordingly, consent memo was prepared. The recovery of 60 grams of heroin was ultimately effected and after following due procedure, challan in the present case was presented and case property was produced in the Court of Sh. Varun Nagpal, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda on 12.11.2018 where two samples of 5 gm each were drawn, which were sealed with seal bearing mark ACJM. Thereafter, on 13.11.2018, sample parcel was sent to the office of RTFSL, Bathinda through Constable Rajesh Kumar and after receipt of report of RTFSL, challan was presented and charges under Section 21 of the NDPS Act were framed.

3. In order to prove the case, the prosecution has examined as many as five witnesses, which are detailed as follows:

1. PW1 SI C.Rajesh Kumar (sample carrier).

2. PW-2 SI Ganeshwar Kumar (second Investigating Officer and Officer Incharge).

3. PW-3 ASI Harinder Singh (recovery witness).

4. PW4 SI Gurinder Singh (first Investigating Officer).

5. PW5 Tejinder Singh, Clerk, Office of RTA.

4. PW4 SI Gurinder Singh was the first Investigating Officer, who had fully supported the case of the prosecution and had also proved on record consent memo Ex.P17. The RC of the car was also recovered and was exhibited as Ex.P8.

5. The version as given by said PW4 was fully corroborated by the testimony of PW-3 ASI Harinder Singh, who was the recovery witness.

6. PW2 SI Ganeshwar Kumar was the Officer Incharge had also fully supported the case of the prosecution.

7. After considering inter alia, the abovesaid evidence including evidence of PW1 and PW5, the trial Court had convicted the appellant under Section 21 of the NDPS Act for being to be found in possession of 60 grams of heroin and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four months and also imposed a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two weeks.

8. It is against the said judgment that the present appeal has been filed.

9. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that although, he does not wish to challenge the conviction of the appellant under Section 21 of the NDPS Act but he prays that the sentence awarded to the present appellant be reduced to the period already undergone. With respect to the said prayer, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that that the FIR in the present case is of the year 2018 and thus, the appellant has suffered agony of trial/appeal for all these years and the appellant was granted the concessio