Chandigarh admn seeks more jail term for drug convict, fined ₹10,000 by high court

High court observes that being a welfare state, Chandigarh is expected to take steps in the reformation of the youths who, due to unemployment, poverty, poor family background and other social and mental aspects, get involved themselves in such crimes

The Punjab and Haryana high court has fined the UT administration ₹10,000 for seeking enhancement of jail term for a drug seizure case convict who remained in jail for two months only.

Since the accused was not a previous convict and in a bid to give him an opportunity to improve, the trial court had sentenced him to the period of jail term already undergone — which was two months. (Getty Images/iStockphoto)

“UT Chandigarh, being a welfare state, is expected to take steps in the reformation of the youths who, due to unemployment, poverty, poor family background and other social and mental aspects, get involved themselves in such crimes unknowing the repercussions of their activities. The sentence awarded by the special judge is only to give an opportunity to the respondent to reform himself and come in the mainstream in the society and become a good citizen,” the bench of justice Sandeep Moudgil said, adding that the trial court had rightly held that convict was not a previous or hardcore convict, against whom the UT should be “so eager to walk to the court for enhancement”.

The judgment on the conviction first came out on June 1, 2019. A total of 210 gm of charas, which is not a commercial quantity, was recovered from the convict’s possession.

The FIR was registered at the IT Park police station on September 10, 2017.

The HC took note of the observations made by the trial court, stating that the convict was not given opportunity to be searched before a gazetted officer and the statements of the prosecution witnesses were also found contradictory.

The trial court had also found some loopholes in the manner of conducting the search, but convicted the accused. Since he was not a previous convict and in a bid to give the accused an opportunity to improve, he was sentenced for the period of jail term already undergone — which was two months.

“The grounds of appeal are nothing but mere repetition of the depositions of the witnesses much less without any contention on which the enhancement is sought,” the HC bench said, adding that no ground for interference was made out and dismissed the appeal.