JUDGMENT

Lalit Batra, J.

Both the above said appeals are being heard and decided by the common judgment being arisen out of the same judgment.

2. Present appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 04.11.2011, passed by Judge, Special Court, Patiala, whereby appellants namely Manjit Singh and Raju were convicted and sentenced as under:-

3. After completion of investigation proceedings, challan was presented in the Court for trial.

4. During trial, learned Trial Court completed various proceedings of trial including framing of charge against the accused, recording of evidence of the witnesses and statements of accused as envisaged under Section 313 Cr.P.C. After considering the prosecution and the defence evidence on record, learned trial Court held the appellants guilty and convicted them for commission of offence and sentenced them vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence both 04.11.2011 as mentioned in para No.2 above.

5. Aggrieved of passing of judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellants are before this Court by way of present appeals.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants submit that appellants do not want to assail the judgment of conviction dated 04.11.2011, in terms of which, they were convicted for the commission of offence punishable under Section 20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). They further submit that the quantity of contraband recovered from the appellants cannot be termed to be huge one as both of them were apprehended while having conscious possession of contraband (Charas) weighing 01 kilogram and 800 grams each i.e. (total 03 kilograms and 600 grams). They further submit that both appellants namely Manjit Singh and Raju were sentenced on the higher side without taking into consideration the relevant factors which are required to be taken into account while imposing punishment higher than the minimum term of imprisonment or amount of fine.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants further submit that in terms of Section 20 (b) (ii) (C) of the Act, in matter pertaining to commercial quantity, the minimum sentence is rigorous imprisonment for a term of not less than 10 years and which may extend to 20 years and shall also be liable to pay fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees. They further submit that as per Section 32B of the Act, certain factors are required to be taken into account for imposing punishment higher than the minimum term of imprisonment or amount of fine, is as under:

"32B. Factors to be taken into account for imposing higher than the minimum punishment. -- Where a minimum term of imprisonment or amount of fine is prescribed for any offence committed under this Act, the court may, in addition to such factors as it may deem fit, take into account the following factors of imposing a punishment higher than the minimum term of imprisonment or amount of fine, namely:--

(a) the use or threat of use of violence or arms by the offender;

(b) the fact that the offender holds a public office and that he has taken advantage of that office in committing the offence;

(c) the fact that the minors are affected by the offence or the minors are used for the commission of an offence;

(d) the fact that the offence is committed in an educational institution or social service facility or in the immediate vicinity of s