Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(P&H) 152

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.
Dharampal Pasvan – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
CRA-S No. 2943 of 2014
Decided On : 11-08-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Amaninder Preet.
For the Respondent: Iqbal Singh Maan.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principles of proportionality in sentencing under Section 20 of the NDPS Act, considering the nature of the offense, the conduct of the accused, and the reformation of the appellant after conviction.

Headnote:
NDPS Act - Conviction under Section 20 - 20 of the NDPS Act - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, specifically focusing on the definition of 'commercial quantity' and the punishment for contravention in relation to cannabis plant and cannabis under sub-clause (b) (ii) (B) of Section 20. The court also referred to various judgments to support its interpretation of the legal provisions and the principles of proportionality in sentencing.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant was convicted for possession of 1 kg of charas under Section 20 of the NDPS Act. The prosecution case involved the recovery of the contraband from the appellant at a railway platform. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial, but did not lead any evidence in his defense.
Finding of the Court:

The trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with a fine of Rs.1 lakh. The appellant appealed against the judgment, challenging the classification of the seized contraband as 'commercial quantity' and the reliance on testimonies of official witnesses. The Court upheld the conviction but modified the sentence, reducing the rigorous imprisonment to the period already undergone by the appellant and reducing the fine to Rs.30,000.
Issues: The issues included the classification of the seized contraband as 'commercial quantity', the reliance on official witnesses, and the appellant's plea for reduction of the sentence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the legal provisions under Section 20 of the NDPS Act, the principles of proportionality in sentencing, and the appellant's conduct and reformation after conviction.
Final Decision: The judgment of conviction was upheld, but the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 10 years was reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant, and the fine was reduced to Rs.30,000.

JUDGMENT :

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.

1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.03.2014 passed by learned Special Court (Fast Track Court), Patiala in case bearing FIR No. 49 dated 27.06.2012, under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NDPS Act’), registered at Police Station GRPS, Patiala, whereby the appellant/accused has been convicted for the commission of offence punishable under Section 20 of the NDPS Act and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years with a fine of Rs.1 lakh and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 27.06.2012, ASI Gurjinder Singh (Investigating Officer) along with other police officials were present at Platform No. 1, Railway Station Rajpura, where they noticed one person sitting on a bench carrying a bag in his hand. On seeing the police party, he tried to slip away but he was apprehended on suspicion. The Investigating Officer informed him of his option to get his bag searched in the presence of either a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. The appellant/accused reposed confidence in the Investigating Officer. A consent memo (Ex.PA) was prepared which was attested by ASI Satwinder Singh, HC Rakesh Kumar and HC Angrej Singh and signed by the accused/appellant. The bag was searched from which charas wrapped in a polythene paper was recovered. Two samples weighing 10 grams each were separated and the remaining contraband in the bag was weighed and the same came out to be 980 grams. The sample parcels and the bulk parcel were sealed with seal bearing impression ‘GS’. Case property was taken into possession vide recovery memo (Ex.PB). Personal search of the appellant/accused was conducted and a memo (Ex.PD) in this regard was prepared. Appellant/accused was arrested vide arrest memo (Ex.PE). Ruqa (Ex.PC) was sent through HC Nirmal Singh on the basis of which formal FIR (Ex.PC/1) was registered by ASI Dharam Singh. After completion of usual formalities of investigation, challan was presented in Court against the appellant/accused.

3. After making due compliance of the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. charge was framed against the appellant/accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined five witnesses and closed its evidence.

5. Appellant/accused did not lead any evidence in his defence.

6. After hearing arguments of both the sides and perusing the evidence on record, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant/accused as stated above.

CONTENTIONS

7. Mr. Amaninder Preet, Legal Aid Counsel appearing for the appellant contends that the alleged recovery of 1 kg of charas does not fall within the ambit of ‘commercial quantity’ for which minimum punishment prescribed is 10 years. As per prosecution version, the appellant was allegedly found in possession of 1 kg charas and punishment for committing said offence has been prescribed under Section 20 of the NDPS Act. As per sub-clause (b) (ii) (B) of Section 20 of the NDPS Act, where the quantity of contraband seized is lesser than commercial quantity but greater than small quantity, the accused shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees. As such, the learned trial Court gravely erred by treating the alleged seized contraband from the appellant as ‘commercial quantity’ and sentencing him to undergo the minimum prescribed period of sentence i.e. RI for 10 years. In support of his arguments, he relied upon the judgments passed by this Court in Rajnish Kumar @ Chapta vs. State of Punjab, 2013 (26) RCR (Criminal) 514, Vakil vs.