The court considered the appellant's personal circumstances in modifying the sentence under the N.D.P.S. Act.

JUDGMENT

R.C. Khulbe, J. - The present criminal jail appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 20.09.2017 passed by the learned Special Session Judge, Uttarkashi in S.S.T. No.04 of 15, State Vs. Brijmohan, whereby the learned Trial Court convicted the appellant u/s 8/15 of the N.D.P.S. Act and sentenced him to undergo four years' R.I. with fine of Rs.25,000/- in default of payment of fine he was sentenced to undergo one year's S.I.

2. Brief facts of the case are that, on 15.10.2014, when the police party were on patrolling duty, they received information that one person is coming from opposite direction and carrying two plastic bags containing contraband article. On the basis of the said information, police party apprehended the appellant at 15:20 hours. The appellant disclosed his name and told that he was carrying poppy straw and going to Rishikesh to sell it out. On the basis of the search, 24 Kg. poppy straw was recovered from the bag. Accordingly, recovery memo Ex.Ka-10 was prepared. Consent letter Ex.Ka-6 was also prepared on the spot. Samples Ex.Ka-7 and Ex.Ka-8 were taken at the spot. On the basis of recovery memo a Chick FIR Ex.Ka-2 was lodged at the police station Dharasu, Uttarkashi. After investigation, chargesheet Ex.Ka-16 was submitted. Accordingly, cognizance was taken on 24.02.2015. After compliance of provision of Section 207 Cr.P.C; the charges were framed under Sections 8/15 of the N.D.P.S. Act. The appellant denied all the allegations and claimed to be tried.

3. To bring home the guilt of the appellant, the prosecution produced PW1-S.I. Baru Singh, PW2 Constable Chandrapal Singh, PW3 Constable Safri Singh, PW4 Constable Kuldeep Chauhan, PW5 Head Constable Raghuvir Singh, PW6 S.I. Chandra Mohan Kala, PW7 S.I. Vinod Chaurasia, PW8 S.I. Sandeep Rawat and PW9 Mohd. Akram.

4. After completion of prosecution evidence, statement of appellant was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. in which he denied all the evidences and stated that the prosecution produced false evidences against him. However, no evidence was produced in defence.

5. After hearing both the parties, learned trial Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him as mentioned in paragraph no.1 of the judgment.

6. Feeling aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence, the present appeal is preferred before this Court.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the State.

8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that he does not want to argue the case on merits as the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant based on sufficient material on record; he fairly submits that since the matter relates to the year 2014 and the appellant has already been acquitted in another case; he is the only bread earner of his family; he is about 64 year old person; the trial Court convicted and sentenced him four years' rigorous imprisonment against which the appellant has already served one and half years, hence the Court may kindly consider it appropriate to reduce the sentence awarded to the appellant to the period already undergone by him.

9. Learned Government Advocate, Mr. G.S. Sandhu also submits that the poppy straw was recovered from the bag of the appellant; although the matter relates to the year 2014; the appellant has already served one and half years in jail and two years RI would serve the purpose.

10. I have also gone through the entire evidence. At the time of recovery S.O. B.S. Chauhan, Constable Raghuvir Singh, Constable Kamal Singh and Constable Deepak Rawat were present at the spot. S.O. B.S. Chauhan appeared as PW1, Constable Chandrapal appeared as PW2 while Constable Raghuvir Singh appeard as PW5. All the above witnesses stated that on 15.10.2014 while they were on patrolling duty they arrested the accused and the above poppy straw was recovered from the bag which was being carried by the appellant and the appellant also confessed the guilt before them.

11. From the recovery memo, it is clear that