542 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-S-1040-SB-2007 Date of decision: 20.03.2025 Jagtar Singh ....Appellant Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. J.S. Brar, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG, Punjab. HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) 1. The prayer in the present appeal is to set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.05.2007 passed by learned Judge, Special Court, Bathinda, whereby, the appellant was convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter ‘NDPS Act’), in the case stemming from FIR No.103 dated 04.10.2003, under Section 15 of the NDPS Act at Police Station Raman. 2. The appellant was sentenced as mentioned below: Offence Sentence Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and six months and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 04.10.2003, a police party headed by ASI Balwinder Singh including HC Sarwan Singh was on patrolling duty. Major Singh, Ex-Sarpanch met the police party and joined them. Neha 2025.03.24 16:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-1040-SB-2007 -2- Thereafter, the police party proceeded towards the kutcha path from Sekhuwala to Tarkhanwala and when they reached near the culvert of minor in the area of village Tarkhanwala, they saw the appellant carrying a gunny bag on his head and on seeing the police party, he tried to turn back. The accused/appellant was apprehended with 30 Kg of Poppy Husk and two samples of 25 grams each were drawn from the bag. Subsequently, FIR (supra) was registered under Section 15 of the NDPS Act. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Court below has fallen into grave error in convicting the appellant, as his guilt has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is contended that there is violation of Section 57 of the NDPS Act and the linking evidence is also missing. The alleged independent witness Major Singh has not been examined and that there are major discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses with regard to the time of handing over the seals. He further contends that he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 16.05.2007 on merits and restricts his prayer to modification of the order on quantum of sentence, to that of the sentence already undergone by the appellant, as he has already undergone actual sentence of 07 months and 09 days in custody and is not involved in any criminal activity. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the appellant as the learned Court below has passed a well-reasoned judgment based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record, as such, he does not deserve any leniency. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record with their able assistance, it transpires that the appellant was convicted Neha 2025.03.24 16:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-1040-SB-2007 -3- for being in possession of 30 kg of Poppy Husk, i.e. intermediate quantity, attracting the offence of Section 15 NDPS Act, for which no minimum punishment has been prescribed. As per his custody certificate, he has already undergone an actual sentence of 07 months and 09 days out of total sentence of 02 years and 06 months, in the instant case. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Section 15 NDPS Act, 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. 7. In Deo Narain Mandal vs. State of U.P. (2004) 7 SCC 257, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has opined that awarding of sentence is not a mere formality in criminal cases. When a minimum and maximum term is 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, 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, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravada Sasikala vs. State of AP AIR 2017 SC 1166, has reiterated that the imposition of sentence also serves a social purpose as it acts as a deterrent by making the accused realise 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 Neha 2025.03.24 16:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-1040-SB-2007 -4- circumstances of each case by noticing the nature of the crime, the manner in which the crime was committed and the 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, the FIR (supra) was lodged on 04.10.2003 and the appellant has been suffering the agony of trial for last more than 21 years. Since his conviction, he has grown into a law-abiding citizen and desires to live a peaceful life. 10. Therefore, in view of the discussion above, the present appeal is disposed of in the following terms:- (i) The judgment dated 16.05.2007 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, Bathinda, is upheld. (ii) The order of sentence dated 16.05.2007 is modified to the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 02 years and 06 months with fine of Rs.2,000/- along with default mechanism awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by him. 11. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 20.03.2025 Neha Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Neha 2025.03.24 16:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document