CRA-S-3390-SB-2011(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 258 CRA-S-3390-SB-2011(O&M) Date of Decision: 20.07.2026 Balihar Singh ....Appellant VERSUS State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. GREWAL Present: Mr. K. S. Dhaliwal, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. P. S. Pandher, AAG, Punjab. **** H.S. GREWAL, J. (ORAL) 1. The present appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order on quantum of sentence dated 17.10.2011 passed by learned Judge Special Court, Patiala, whereby appellant has been convicted under Section 18 of the NDPS Act, 1985 for keeping in his conscious possession of 1 Kg of Opium and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years with the fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default of the payment of fine, he was ordered to further undergo RI for 3 months. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 31.05.2007, on suspicion, the appellant was apprehended by the police. Upon search conducted by the police party, he was found in possession of 1 Kg of Opium. Thereafter, appellant was found guilty for keeping in possession of 1Kg of Opium and was convicted on 17.10.2011 and sentenced to undergo RI for 3 year and fine of Rs. 20,000/- vide order on quantum of sentence dated 17.10.2011. Aggrieved against the same, the appellant has filed the present appeal. ANIL KUMAR 2026.07.29 14:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-3390-SB-2011(O&M) 2 3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and quantum of sentence dated 17.10.2011 respectively, passed by the learned trial Court on merits and restricts his prayer qua modification of the order on quantum of sentence, to the period as already undergone by the appellant, as he has already undergone custody for a period of 1 years and 15 days (as reflected in the custody certificate). He further prays that since the FIR in question pertains to the year 2007, a lenient view may be taken while passing an order/ judgment by this Court. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the appellant as mentioned hereinabove and submits that the learned Court below has passed well-reasoned judgments based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record. He has filed the custody certificate of the appellant in which he has undergone custody for a period of 01 year and 15 days. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material placed on record. 6. The appellant has been convicted for keeping in possession of 1 Kg of Opium. Moreover, the FIR in the present case pertains to the year 2007 and the appellant has already faced the rigors of the trial for more than 19 years. 7. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in “Deo Narain Mandal Vs. State of UP”, (2004) 7 SCC 257, has held that awarding of sentence is not a mere formality in criminal cases. When a minimum and maximum term is ANIL KUMAR 2026.07.29 14:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-3390-SB-2011(O&M) 3 prescribed by the statute with regard to the period of sentence, a discretionary element is vested in the Court. Background of each case, which includes factors like gravity of the offence, the manner in which the offence is committed, age of the accused, should be considered while determining the quantum of sentence and this discretion is not to be used arbitrarily or whimsically. After assessing all relevant factors, proper sentence should be awarded bearing in mind the principle of proportionality to ensure the sentence is neither excessively harsh nor does it come across as lenient. 8. Further, a two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravada Sasikala Vs. State of AP, AIR 2017 SC 1166, has held that the imposition of sentence also serves a social purpose, as it acts as a deterrent by making the accused realize the damage caused not only to the victim, but also to the society at large. The law in this regard is well settled that opportunities of reformation must be granted and such discretion is to be exercised by evaluating all attending circumstances of each case by noticing the nature of the crime, the manner, in which the crime was committed and conduct of the accused to strike a balance between the efficacy of law and the chances of reformation of the accused. 9. A perusal of the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court indicates no perversity in its findings and the same is based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record. However, learned counsel for the appellant has not assailed the judgment of conviction ANIL KUMAR 2026.07.29 14:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-3390-SB-2011(O&M) 4 onmerits, rather restricted his prayer only qua modification of quantum of sentence to that of the sentence already undergone by the appellant. 10. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Section 18 of the NDPS Act, 1985 and keeping in view the fact the FIR pertains to the year 2007 and the appellant has faced the rigors of trial for a period of more than 19 years, therefore, while taking a lenient view, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice if the sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 11. In view of above, the revision petition is disposed of by upholding the judgment of conviction dated 17.10.2011 passed by the learned Special Court, Patiala; however, the order of sentence dated 17.10.2011 is modified to the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years imposed upon the appellant is reduced to the period of sentence as already undergone by him. However, the fine be deposited with the trial Court within a period of 4 weeks on receipt of the copy of this Court. (H.S. GREWAL) 20.07.2026 JUDGE anil Whether speaking/ reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No ANIL KUMAR 2026.07.29 14:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document