Union Territory of Chandigarh vs Ashok Thakur

Sham Sunder, J.—This appeal has been filed by the appellant, for enhancement of sentence awarded to the respondent-accused, vide judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 11.10.2007 rendered by the Judge, Special Court, Chandigarh, vide which he convicted the accused (now respondent) for the offence, punishable u/s 20 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called as ''the Act'' only) and sentenced him, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5-1/4 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of the same, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another period of 1-1/4 months, for having been found in possession of 3 Kgs. 400 grams ganja, without any permit or licence.

The facts, in brief are that on 20.11.2002, the accused respondent in the area of Police Station Manimajra, Chandigarh, was found in possession of 3 Kgs. 400 grams of ganja without any permit or licence by ASI Sarup Singh, PW-2, the Investigating Officer. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. The accused was arrested and after the completion of investigation, he was challaned.

On appearance, in the Court, the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution, were supplied to the accused. Charge u/s 20 of the Act, was framed against him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed judicial trial.

The prosecution, in support of its case, examined MHC Anil Kumar PW-1, ASI Sarup Singh, PW-2, Constable. Yash Pal, PW-3, HC Gurbaj Singh, PW4 SI Satyabir Singh, PW-5 Dr. A.K. Dalela, PW6 and Constable Naresh Kumar, PW-7. Thereafter, the Public Prosecutor for the State, closed the prosecution evidence.

The statement of the accused, u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded and he was t put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against him, in the prosecution evidence. He pleaded false implication. However, he did not lead any evidence, in his defence.

After hearing the Public Prosecutor for the State, the Counsel for the accused, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as stated herein before.

Feeling aggrieved, against inadequacy of sentence awarded by the trial Court, vide the judgment aforesaid, the instant appeal was filed by the appellant.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.

The counsel for the appellant, at the very out set submitted that keeping in view the gravity of offence, committed by the accused, the trial Court did not award him adequate sentence. He further submitted that the sentence must commensurate with the guilt of the accused proved. He further submitted that the recovery of ganja effected from the accused was more than the small quantity and less than the commercial quantity. He further submitted that the punishment provided for the offence committed by the accused could extend upto 10 years. He further submitted that the persons, who deal in narcotics, are a menace to the society, and they are required to be dealt with very severely. Accordingly, he prayed for enhancement of sentence.

On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent, submitted that the recovery effected from the accused, fell within the ambit of non-commercial quantity. He further submitted that the trial Court after taking into consideration the evidence, on record and the facts and circumstances of the case, was right, in awarding sentence of 5-1/4 months. He further submitted that the sentence awarded to the accused by the trial Court, is commensurate with his guilt. He further submitted that no ground was made out for enhancement of sentence awarded to the accused, by the trial Court.

After giving my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions, raised by the counsel for the parties, in my opinion, the contentions raised by the counsel for the appellant, do not deserve acceptance, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. As stated above, the accused was only found in possession of 3 Kgs. 400 grams ganja. Recovery of 20 Kgs and above ganja, falls within the ambit of commercial quantity. No doubt, the recovery of ganja, effected from the accused was more than the small quantity, but it was much less than the commercial quantity. The mere fact that the sentence, in such like cases, could extend upto 10 years, did not mean, that the accused-petitioner should have been awarded more sentence than the one awarded by the trial Court. At the time of awarding sentence, the Court is required to take into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the antecedents of the accused the nature of offence and the quantity of contraband recovered from the accused. In the instant case, the trial Court took into consideration all these factors and ultimately, came to the conclusion that RI of 5-1/4 months, if awarded to the accused would serve the ends of justice. The sentence awarded by the trial Court can by no stretch of imagination be said to be shockingly on the lower side. The sentence awarded to the accused by the Trial Court is commensurate with the guilt proved. The discretion exercised by the trial Court, in awarding sentence to the accused, could not be said to be either arbitrary or capricious.

No ground, whatsoever, is thus, made out for enhancement of sentence. The appeal, therefore, deserves to be dismissed.

For the reasons recorded above, Criminal Appeal No. 617-SB of 2008 is dismissed.