ABBAS ALI Vs STATE OF PUNJAB
Bench: H.L. DATTU,RANJAN GOGOI
Case number: Crl.A. No.-001771-001771 / 2011
Diary number: 70888 / 2009
Advocates: ARUN K. SINHA Vs
KULDIP SINGH
Page 1
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1771 OF 2011
ABBAS ALI APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB RESPONDENT
O R D E R
1. This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment and
order passed by the High Court of Judicature of Punjab and Haryana
at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 440-SB of 1997, dated
08.09.2008. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has
confirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed
by the Trial Court, dated 21.05.1997, whereby the appellant before
us has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 25
of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“the
Act” for short) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
a period of 10 years alongwith a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in default
of payment of which he was sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a further period of six months.
2. The facts, relevant to this appeal, are: A recovery of 10
bags containing rice polish and 37 bags containing poppy husk, in
accordance with the provisions of the Act, was made from three
accused persons (for short “A1”, “A2”, and “A3”, respectively). The
said bags were being transported in a canter registered in the name
Page 2
2
of the appellant herein (referred to as A4 before the Trial Court).
A1 to A3 were arrested at the time of recovery, however A4 was
arrested later. Upon trial, A1 to A3 were convicted by the Trial
Court for the offence under Section 15 of the Act and awarded
similar sentence as the appellant herein. By the judgment and order
of the High Court, dated 13.05.2008, in an appeal preferred by the
said three accused persons, their conviction and sentence has been
confirmed by the High Court. The said three accused persons are not
before us in this appeal.
3. The Trial Court and the High Court have elaborately dealt
with the case of the appellant in their respective judgments and
orders. The appellant has neither been successful in rebutting the
statutory presumption of the existence of culpable mental state
under Section 35 of the Act nor has he been able to prove, beyond
reasonable doubt, the statutory exception provided under Section
60(3) of the Act, before both the Courts below.
4. Before us, in this appeal, the learned counsel appearing
for the appellant would take up the very same contentions that were
canvassed before the Trial Court and the High Court, except that
the appellant is a disabled person and, therefore, the disability
of the disabled person, which is a vital factor, operating in his
favor, so as to determine his culpability vis-à-vis the use of his
canter by A1 to A3 for indulging in transportation of the
contraband substances has to be considered.
Page 3
3
5. The aforesaid issue which we have noticed in our order,
was not canvassed by the appellant either before the Trial Court or
before the High Court and, therefore, we cannot permit the
appellant to raise the said issue for the first time before us.
Having said so, we have still looked into the disability
certificate so produced by the appellant before this Court. The
certificate would only show that one of the appellant's legs is
amputated and, therefore, there is 60% physical disability. The
factum of a person being physically disabled does not imply that he
would accord his permission to the use of his vehicle for an
offence punishable under the provisions of the Act and, therefore,
in our opinion, the submission of the learned counsel is devoid of
any merit and, thus, is liable to be rejected.
6. Insofar as the other submissions made by the learned
counsel are concerned, the same have been answered both by the
Trial Court and the High Court. Having carefully perused through
the judgments and orders of the Courts below and re-appreciating
the evidence on record, we are in agreement with the reasoning and
the conclusion reached by the High Court. In our considered
opinion, the conviction and sentence so passed by the Trial Court
and confirmed by the High Court does not suffer from any
perversity.
Page 4
4
7. In that view of the matter, this appeal is liable to be
dismissed and is, therefore, dismissed accordingly.
Ordered accordingly.
.......................J.
(H.L. DATTU)
.......................J.
(RANJAN GOGOI)
NEW DELHI;
JANUARY 15, 2013.