(Bela M. Trivedi and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.)
Gian Chand ____________________________________ Appellant;
v.
State of Himachal Pradesh ________________________ Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 373 of 2018, decided on January 31, 2025
The Judgement of the court was delivered by
Judgment
1. The present Appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 01.07.2016/07.07.2016 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in Criminal Appeal No. 317 of 2012, whereby the High Court has allowed the said Appeal of the State of Himachal Pradesh and set aside the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Court of Special Judge – II, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh in Sessions Trial No. 13-S-7 of 2012 (2010).
2. The High Court, by the impugned order has convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“hereinafter referred to as “NDPS Act”), and directed him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 15 years and to pay fine of Rs. 2.00 lakhs, and in default thereof, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years.
3. At the outset, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that since the Trial Court had already acquitted the appellant and the High Court has reversed the judgment of the Trial Court, he does not wish to challenge the judgment of the High Court, so far as conviction is concerned, however, he submitted that since the appellant has already undergone about more than 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and there are no criminal antecedents, the sentence imposed on the appellant be reduced appropriately. He also submitted that even the material witnesses i.e. the conductor and driver of the bus, in which the appellant was allegedly travelling had turned hostile to the case of the prosecution, and that there were no independent witnesses examined by the prosecution.
4. However, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent – State submitted that considering the seriousness of the offence and the minimum sentence prescribed for Section 20 of the NDPS Act, the Court may not reduce the sentence. He fairly conceded that there were no criminal antecedents of the appellant.
5. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and to the impugned order passed by the High Court as also of the Special Court, we are inclined to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, so far as the sentence part is concerned. As such, the appellant has already undergone about more than 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and there are no criminal antecedents. There is nothing adverse which has been brought on record with regard to the conduct of the appellant during his 10 years of imprisonment. Hence, in our opinion, the interest of justice would be met, if the sentence imposed by the High Court is reduced from 15 years to 12 years and reduce the amount of fine from Rs. 2.00 lakhs to Rs. 1.00 lakh.
6. We may clarify that we are conscious about the seriousness and gravity of the offence for which the appellant has been held guilty, however, it is required to be noted that the appellant was acquitted by the Trial Court giving him the benefit of doubt, on the ground that material witnesses i.e. the conductor and driver of the bus, in which the appellant was allegedly travelling, had turned hostile, and the prosecution had failed to examine other independent witnesses.
7. In that view of the matter, the appeal is partly allowed. While confirming the judgment of conviction recorded by the High Court, the period of sentence is reduced for the offence under Section 20 of the NDPS Act. It is directed that the appellant shall undergo 12 years of rigorous imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs. 1.00 lakh, and in default thereof, shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year.
8. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
———
