328 CRA-S-62-SB-2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 328 CRA-S-62-SB-2008 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 17.07.2026 PUNJAB SINGH …. Appellant Versus STATE OF HARYANA …. Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA Present: Ms. Arshpreet Kaur, Advocate for Mr. Gursahib Singh Hundal, Advocate, for the appellant. Ms. Shaveta Sanghi, DAG, Haryana. * * * * DEEPAK MANCHANDA, J 1. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of sentence dated 20.12.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 15(b) of the NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 05 years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- and further in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. 2. The facts emerged from the pleadings of the present case are that on 08.08.2006, based upon secret information, the appellant was apprehended from the spot with the recovery of poppy husk weighing 40 kgs along with a scooter bearing registration No.HR23-A-1316. The appellant was arrested. Accordingly, FIR No.127 dated 08.08.2006 under Section 15 of the NDPS Act was registered against the appellant. 3. A trial was proceeded. The prosecution examined 08 witnesses and closed the evidence. The statement of the appellant under SANDEEP KUMAR 2026.07.20 15:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. 328 CRA-S-62-SB-2008 (O&M) -2- Section 313 CrPC was thereafter recorded, wherein the appellant denied the allegations levelled against him and pleaded innocence. However, the appellant did not lead any evidence in defence. After adjudication, the trial Court vide judgment dated 20.12.2007 convicted the appellant and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 05 years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- for having committed offence under Section 15(b) of the NDPS Act and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that though the appellant has a good case on merits, but she would be giving up the plea of merits and her only submission is about the sentence, which has been imposed by the Court below. She has further argued that the appellant is of old age and out of the substantive sentence awarded, he has already undergone incarceration for a period of 01 year, 06 months and 27 days and has remained on bail pursuant to the order dated 28.02.2008 passed by this Court suspending the sentence during the pendency of the present appeal. She further submits that the quantity of the contraband, which was recovered from the possession of the appellant falls under the definition of non-commercial quantity and having regard to the nature of the offence, the appellant's clean antecedents, and the fact that he is not involved in any other criminal case, this Court may, while maintaining the conviction, reduce the substantive sentence to the period already undergone by him, subject to enhancement of the fine, in order to meet the ends of justice as he has faced protracted criminal proceedings of more than 20 years. SANDEEP KUMAR 2026.07.20 15:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. 328 CRA-S-62-SB-2008 (O&M) -3- 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellant. She submits that all the mandatory provisions under the NDPS Act were complied with, the appellant had been apprehended at the spot and recovery was effected from his conscious possession and there was no occasion of any false implication. Further, the conviction is based upon the appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties, though, it is admitted that the quantity recovered from the appellant i.e. 40 kgs falls under the definition of non- commercial quantity. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance. 7. While considering the appellant's prayer for reduction of sentence and without opining upon the merits of the case, this Court finds that the considerable lapse of time since the commission of the offence, coupled with the prolonged pendency of the proceedings, is a relevant mitigating circumstance. Further, during this period, as per learned State counsel, the appellant has not been involved in any other criminal case and has maintained a clean record, indicating his reformation. Moreover, the recovery from the appellant falls under the non-commercial category, thereby not disentitling him from the relief sought. Further, as per the custody certificate dated 15.07.2026, the appellant has already undergone 01 year, 06 months and 27 days of the substantive sentence out of the total sentence of 05 years rigorous imprisonment. These factors deserve due weightage while determining the alteration of sentence awarded by the trial Court. SANDEEP KUMAR 2026.07.20 15:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. 328 CRA-S-62-SB-2008 (O&M) -4- 8. A similar issue came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Israfil @ Pappu @ Naimuddin Khan Versus State of Madhya Pradesh, 2026 INSC 654, wherein, having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, including the long lapse of time and other mitigating factors, the sentence awarded to the accused was reduced. The ratio of the said decision lends support to the course being adopted in the present case. The relevant extract of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder: “23. This Court, in catena of cases before it, while maintaining conviction, had exercised its discretion and had reduced the substantive sentence considering long passage of time, absence of criminal antecedents and other mitigating circumstances. For instance, in Padum Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, while maintaining conviction for offences including Sections 467 and 468 of the IPC, this Court reduced the sentence considering the age of the matter, the sentence already undergone and taking into account the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. The long lapse of time without any material indicating repetition of similar criminal conduct is also a relevant consideration while moulding sentence. The appellant has already undergone the rigours of criminal proceedings for over a decade since 2014.” 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also recognized that prolonged criminal litigation is by itself a relevant mitigating circumstance while modifying the sentence. Where an accused has lived for years, or even decades, under the shadow of criminal proceedings, facing the uncertainty of the outcome and the social stigma associated with such prosecution, the said experience constitutes a significant factor SANDEEP KUMAR 2026.07.20 15:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. 328 CRA-S-62-SB-2008 (O&M) -5- that deserves to be taken into account while moulding the sentence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further observed that such a principle is particularly applicable in cases involving non-heinous offences, where the ends of justice can be adequately served by adopting a reformative and proportionate approach to sentencing rather than a purely retributive one. 10. On the issue of reduction of sentence to the period already undergone, the judgment in S.K. Sakkar @ Mannan vs. State of West Bengal, (2021) 4 SCC 483, is being referred to wherein the accused was convicted under Section 20 of the Act and Hon’ble Apex Court reduced the sentence of five years to 2 years, 4 months and 16 days, by considering that the occurrence took place in 1997 and he was not a habitual offender, rather a first-time convict. 11. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satish @ Sabbe vs. State of U.P., (2021) 14 SCC 580, had observed that, “Whilst it is undoubtedly true that society has a right to lead a peaceful and fearless life, without free roaming criminals creating havoc in the lives of ordinary peace loving citizens. But equally strong is the foundation of reformative theory which propounds that a civilised society cannot be achieved only through punitive attitudes and vindictiveness; and that instead public harmony, brotherhood and mutual acceptability ought to be fostered. Thus, first time offenders ought to be liberally accorded a chance to repent their past and look forward to a bright future”. [Maru Ram v. Union of India, (1981) 1 SCC 107 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 112]” 12. For the reasons mentioned above, the conviction for the offence under Section 15 (b) of the NDPS Act is hereby maintained. SANDEEP KUMAR 2026.07.20 15:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. 328 CRA-S-62-SB-2008 (O&M) -6- However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the appellant has already faced the agony of the protracted prosecution and suffered mental harassment for a long period of 20 years, present appeal is partly allowed and the jail sentence as awarded by the Court below is altered to the extent that the same is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant, subject to enhanced fine of Rs.50,000/- to be deposited with the concerned trial Court within a period of two months from today. 13. Bail bonds/surety bonds furnished by the appellant stand discharged. 14. It is clarified that in case the aforesaid fine amount is not deposited within the stipulated period, the same would result in reviving the jail sentence awarded by the Court below and the appellant will have to then undergo the remaining jail sentence. 15. The pending miscellaneous application, if any, is also disposed of as such. 17.07.2026 ‘Sandeep’ (DEEPAK MANCHANDA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes No Whether Reportable: Yes No SANDEEP KUMAR 2026.07.20 15:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.