IN THE 227 Jagroop Singh State of Punjab CORAM : HON'BLE Present :- Mr. Mr. VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, 1. The order of sentence Court, Sri Muktsar No.146 dated 29.10.2007 and Psychotropic Muktsar Sahib, and Section 15 N.D.P.S. 2. Breifly 29.10.2007 at about officials, was conducting passage, Tharajwala, Maruti car bearing Tharajwala side THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AT CHANDIGARH CRA-S-1999 Date of decision: VERSUS HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD Mr. P.S. Brar, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Mohit Kapoor, Sr.DAG, Punjab ***** BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral) The appellant has challenged the judgment sentence dated 02.06.2012 passed by Muktsar Sahib, whereby he was convicted 29.10.2007 registered under Section Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 at Police and sentenced as under :- Section Sentence and 15 of the N.D.P.S. Act RI for a period two years and of Rs.20,000/- Breifly summarized, the facts of the about 6:45 A.M., ASI Makhan Singh, conducting naka checking and Tharajwala, close to Gidderbaha bypass. bearing registration No. DL3CA side and, on noticing the police party, PUNJAB & HARYANA CHANDIGARH 1999-SB-2012 (O&M) decision: 21.05.2026 ...Appellant(s) ...Respondent(s) VINOD S. BHARDWAJ appellant. Punjab. judgment of conviction and by the learned Judge, Special convicted in case bearing FIR Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs Police Station Gidderbaha, Sri and Find In default thereof period of and a fine -. Imprisonment for a period 01 month the present case are that on Singh, along with other police and patrol duty near Katcha bypass. During the naka, a white DL3CA-5286 came from village party, its driver attempted to SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.05.29 18:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 227 CRA-S-1999-SB-2012 (O&M) reverse the vehicle. On suspicion, the police intercepted the car and apprehended the driver, who disclosed his identity as Jagroop Singh alias Roop Singh, resident of Doda. In the meantime, Vijay Kumar, a local resident who was on a morning walk, was joined as an independent witness. A gunny bag tied with a rope was found lying on the back seat of the car. ASI Makhan Singh informed the accused that he suspected the bag contained intoxicating material and apprised him of his legal right to have the search conducted before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer. The accused, however, consented to the search being conducted by ASI Makhan Singh, and a consent memo was prepared and attested by witnesses. Upon search of the bag, poppy husk was recovered. From the recovered substance, 250 grams was separated as a sample, while the remaining quantity weighed 29 kg 750 grams. The sample parcel and bulk parcel were sealed with the seal bearing impression “MS,” and Form M-29 and specimen seal chit were prepared. The case property and the Maruti car were taken into possession through recovery memos. A ruqa was sent to the police station through HC Raj Bahadar Singh, on the basis of which FIR under Sections 15/61/85 of the NDPS Act was registered at Police Station Gidderbaha. The accused was formally arrested, and Rs. 250/- recovered during his personal search was also taken into possession. Thereafter, the case property was produced before SHO/SI Davinder Singh, who affixed his own seal “DS” on the parcels. On the next day, the accused and case property were produced before the Duty Magistrate, Malout, and subsequently the sealed parcels were deposited with the MHC. The sample parcel was later sent to the Chemical Examiner. After receipt of the chemical examination report and SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.05.29 18:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3 227 CRA-S-1999-SB-2012 (O&M) completion of investigation, challan was presented against the accused. 3. On completion of investigation and filing of the final report under Section 173 Cr. P.C., the charge was framed. The prosecution led its evidence and examined the following witnesses: PW-1 HC Jugraj Singh (Retd.) PW-2 HC Charajit Singh PW-3 ASI Makhan Singh PW-4 SI Davinder Singh PW-5 HC Gurmeet Singh 4. On conclusion whereof, the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded. The appellant denied the allegations and examined one witness, i.e. DW-1 Paramjit Singh. 5. Parties were heard at length and upon consideration thereof, vide judgment dated 02.06.2012, the appellant was convicted for commission of offence under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 andvide order of sentence of even date, the appellant was sentenced as above. Aggrieved thereof, the instant appeal had been filed. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the appellant does not intend to assail or challenge the findings of conviction recorded by the Courts on merits. It is contended that the appellant accepts the verdict of guilt and confines the present challenge solely to the quantum and nature of sentence imposed upon them. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the following mitigating circumstances have been pointed out: SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.05.29 18:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 227 CRA-S-1999-SB-2012 (O&M) (i) The incident in question pertains to the year 2007 and a period of more than 19 years has already elapsed since registration of the case. (ii) The appellant has faced the rigors, anxiety and mental agony of protracted criminal proceedings for nearly 20 years, which itself constitutes a significant mitigating circumstance while considering the question of sentence. (iii) The appellant has already undergone total sentence of 06 months 02 days out of the total sentence of 02 years and had already paid the fine imposed by the Trial Court. (iv) The appellant was not involved in any other case under NDPS Act and even after grant of bail in the present case, there is no involvement of the appellant in any other case under the NDPS Act. (v) The appellant would currently be in advance stages of his life. Detention of the appellant for undergoing the remaining sentence would invariably have serious implications on not only his life but also that of his family as well. It would thus upset the entire life of the appellant. (vi) The appellant do not seek to challenge the conviction on merits and confines the prayer only to reduction of sentence, thereby reflecting acceptance of the verdict. (vii) There is no allegation or material on record to indicate that the appellant have been involved in any other SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.05.29 18:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 5 227 CRA-S-1999-SB-2012 (O&M) criminal case, either prior to or subsequent to the present occurrence. (viii) The absence of any criminal antecedents or subsequent involvement in similar offences indicates that the appellant has reformed themselves and has successfully reintegrated into the mainstream of society. (ix) The conduct of the appellant during the pendency of proceedings has remained satisfactory and there is nothing on record suggestive of misuse of concession of bail or any attempt to evade the process of law. (x) The prolonged pendency of the proceedings itself has operated as a substantial punitive factor and the appellant have remained under continuous psychological and social stress owing to the criminal prosecution. (xi) The penal consequences imposed upon the appellant, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, deserve to be moderated so as to balance the ends of justice with the principles of proportionality and reformative sentencing. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and has gone through the case record. 8. Since learned counsel for the appellant has expressly confined the challenge only to the quantum of sentence and has not assailed the findings of conviction recorded by the Courts, this Court does not deem it necessary to re-appreciate the evidence or examine the matter on merits with SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.05.29 18:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 6 227 CRA-S-1999-SB-2012 (O&M) regard to the culpability of the appellant. The present petition is, therefore, being considered only to the limited extent of examining whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in light of the mitigating factors pointed out on behalf of the appellant, any indulgence is warranted on the aspect of sentence. 9. This Court, in CRR-2697-2025 titled Lakshay Jain v. State of Punjab & Another, vide order dated 14.11.2025, has held that sentencing must prioritise a reformative approach, assessing an offender’s background and circumstances rather than adopting a purely punitive stance. Mere involvement in an offence does not, by itself, establish criminality; instead, the totality of circumstances including the manner of the act, antecedents, conduct, and intent must guide sentencing. The law, therefore, distinguishes between errors of judgment and acts driven by deliberate mens rea, recognising that offenders are often capable of reform and should not be presumed beyond rehabilitation. The relevant extract of the aforesaid judgment are as follows: 32. The imposition of punishment is a refined judicial function that demands a careful harmonization of its underlying purposes namely, retribution, deterrence, and reformation. This balance must reflect not only the reasoning of the Court but also the ethical standards and social context in which justice is administered. As societal values and circumstances evolve, the prominence accorded to each of these aims necessarily varies, requiring the Court to adapt its emphasis in response to the changing demands of justice. The aforesaid principle found early articulation in the writings of Justice Caldwell, who, in his authoritative work “Criminology,” observed that: “If the infliction of pain is to have its greatest effect upon SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.05.29 18:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 7 227 CRA-S-1999-SB-2012 (O&M) the behavior of a person, it must follow soon after the act for which it is given. But punishment always takes place weeks or even months after the offense has been committed, since the offender must first be apprehended, tried, and convicted. Such delay tends to disconnect the punishment from the offense in the mind of the offender, and it may well be considered as merely another painful experience in an unjust world.” 33. Moreover, Italian criminologist and jurist Cesare Beccaria, in his seminal treatise “On Crimes and Punishments,” propounded the doctrine of penal parsimony, emphasizing that the justification of any criminal justice system rests upon its capacity to inflict the least possible evil necessary to achieve its ends. The underlying premise is that punishment, being in itself a necessary evil and devoid of inherent virtue, must be confined strictly within the bounds of necessity. The imposition of suffering or restriction upon an offender cannot extend beyond what is indispensable for the preservation of social order. 34. While ‘retributive’ object of sentencing is seen regressive, in modern day sentencing jurisprudence for its focus on punishing proportionally for the harm done and caters to the negative senses of spite and anger against a wrongful act, the rehabilitative/reformative approach examines the circumstances surrounding the offender on social, economical, physical and psychological level so as to reintegrate the offender in the social mainstream. The law extends the benefit of good and perceives a probability and possibility of reform. It aims at capitalising a perceived social liability. The expectation of law is based on the surrounding circumstances to distinguish between a ‘criminal’ and an ‘offender’. 35. While the pre-requisites of crime do not distinguish two persons, on the legal scale, this aspect is significant for sentencing. A mere involvement of a person in crime may not SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.05.29 18:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 8 227 CRA-S-1999-SB-2012 (O&M) necessarily mark a person as a ‘criminal.’ ‘Criminality’ in mind and action has to be determined from the totality of circumstances including the mode and manner in committing an offence, the conduct pre and post the offence, the criminal antecedents, nature of involvement, influence of peers etc. and not just from an isolatory consideration of commission of an offence. A Court of law would not assume every offender to be beyond reform and differentiate in punishment on considering whether the offences arise due to human error or that stem from actions propelled by mens rea. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and keeping in view the fact that the occurrence pertains to the year 2007; that they have faced the agony and rigours of protracted criminal proceedings for nearly 20 years; that they are not shown to be involved in any other criminal case; that their conduct during the pendency of proceedings has remained satisfactory and further considering that the appellant have not challenged the conviction on merits and has confined their prayer only to the question of sentence, this Court is of the view that the case warrants adoption of a compassionate and reformative approach in the matter of sentencing. The cumulative effect of the aforesaid mitigating circumstances persuades this Court to hold that the ends of justice would be adequately served by suitably modifying the sentence imposed upon the appellant. 11. In the totality of the circumstances, I am satisfied that adequate and compelling mitigating factors exist which justify interference with the quantum of sentence. The peculiar facts of the present case, as noticed hereinabove, clearly make out a case for reduction of the sentence to the period already undergone, as any further incarceration would not serve the ends of justice. SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.05.29 18:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 9 227 CRA-S-1999-SB-2012 (O&M) 12. Accordingly, I deem it appropriate to partly allow the petition. While maintaining the judgment of conviction, the order of sentence so passed is modified. The sentence awarded to the appellant vide order dated 02.06.2012 passed by the Judge, Special Court, Sri Muktsar Sahib is reduced to the period undergone and the sentence of fine and custody in default thereof is maintained. 13. All the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, are also disposed of. (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) 21.05.2026 JUDGE Sumit Gusain Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.05.29 18:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document