IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

784 CRA-S-601-SB-2017 (O&M)

Date of decision: 11.12.2025 Rajesh Kumar ....Appellant Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY *****

Present : Ms. Meena Bansal, Legal Aid Counsel, for the appellant.

Mr. Manipal Singh Atwal, DAG, Punjab.

*****

AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (Oral)

1. Challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment/order dated 26.10.2016, passed by the learned Special Court, Ludhiana, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years alongwith fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default of payment of the same, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years, for the offence punishable under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘the Act’).

2. Briefly, the facts are that on 26.05.2014, when ASI Swaran Singh alongwith other police officials was present at Tibba Road near Gopal Nagar Chowk, for patrolling duty, apprehended the accused in possession of 250 grams of intoxicant powder. The requisite samples were drawn and sealed. Ruqa was sent, on the basis of which, an FIR was registered.

3. After the investigation concluded, the police submitted the final report in terms of Section 173 Cr.P.C. The Court, upon finding a prima facie case, proceeded to frame charge under Section 22 of the Act. The accused, however, pleaded not guilty and insisted on trial.

4. Prosecution in support of its case examined 5 witnesses after which the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein the accused denied incriminating evidence, while pleading innocence and alleged false implication.

5. The learned trial Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as noticed above.

6. Hence appellant in appeal.

7. Learned counsel submits that the appellant had already undergone the substantive sentence, whereafter, even completed 1 year, 6 months and 10 days out of 2 years, for default of non-payment of fine. He does not press the present appeal on merits, however, confines his prayer for reduction of sentence to the period of 1 year, 6 months and 10 days, already undergone by the appellant for non-payment of fine, on the grounds that he is a first offender; only bread earner of the family; belongs to the poor strata of society; has children of marriageable age; not involved in any other case and has been facing the agony of protracted trial since 2014.

8. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the trial Court after evaluating the evidence has rightly convicted the appellant and the sentence awarded to him cannot be said to be excessive, therefore, he prays for the dismissal of the present appeal. He, however, was unable to deny that appellant, that he had undergone the substantive sentence; undergoing the default sentence for non-payment of fine and during pendency, committed no similar offence.

9. Counsel on either side heard and the record perused.

10. Evidently, ASI Swaran Singh and PW4-HC Mohinder Singh had deposed that the accused appellant was apprehended and found to be in conscious possession of the alleged contraband. As per chemical examiner report, contents of the contraband were opined to be diphenoxylate hydrochloride salt 3.04%. There is no scope for interference in the findings recorded by the trial Court as the recovery has been proved on credible official testimony, and immaterial discrepancies due to lapse of time. As such, his conviction is upheld.

11. In Satish vs. State of U.P., (2021) 14 SCC 580, Hon’ble the Supreme Court had observed that, “Whilst it is undoubtedly true that society has a right to lead a peaceful and fearless life, without free roaming criminals creating havoc in the lives of ordinary peace loving citizens. But equally strong is the foundation of reformative theory which propounds that a civilised society cannot be achieved only through punitive attitudes and vindi