557 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA SITA SINGH STATE OF HARYANA CORAM: HON’BLE MR. Present: Ms for the Mr. Harkesh Kumar, AAG, Haryana. HARPREET SINGH BRAR 1. The prayer in the present conviction and order of sentence dated Additional Sessions and sentenced for Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter the case stemming from FIR No. NDPS Act at Police Station 2. The appellant was sentenced as mentioned below: Section 15 Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH V/S HARYANA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Ms. Harmanpreet Kaur, amicus curiae for the appellant. Mr. Harkesh Kumar, AAG, Haryana. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) The prayer in the present appeal is to set aside the conviction and order of sentence dated 26.05.2007 Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 15 rugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter the case stemming from FIR No.111 dated 23.02.2002, Act at Police Station Sadar, Fatehabad. The appellant was sentenced as mentioned below: Offence Section 15(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year Rs.5,000/ of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-S-1153-SB-2007 Date of decision: 20.03.2025 ...APPELLANT ...RESPONDENT HARPREET SINGH BRAR amicus curiae Mr. Harkesh Kumar, AAG, Haryana. appeal is to set aside the judgment of 26.05.2007 passed by learned whereby the appellant was convicted the offence punishable under Section 15(b) of the Narcotic rugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter ‘NDPS Act’), in 23.02.2002, under Section 15 of the The appellant was sentenced as mentioned below: Sentence Rigorous imprisonment for a period one year and to pay fine of ,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for five months. MANISHA 2025.03.25 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-1153-SB 3. Brief facts of the case are that Singh along with other police officials was village Akanwali on foot and crime detection, waist, sat behind the bushes, after seeing the police. On suspicion, he apprehended. Upon search of Subsequently, FIR 4. Learned there are material contradictions in the testimonies of PW Singh and PW-5 i.e. HC Keshav Dutt regarding the affixation of seals on the samples. She further contends that the link evidence in the prosecution case is defective, which cannot be taken into consideration. an unexplained delay in sending the representative sample to the forensic science laboratory to lend any credence to the case set up by the prosecution. that the appellant has already under 07 days and is not involved in any other criminal case. 5. Per contra appellant as the learned Court below has passed a well based on correct appreciation of evidence available o 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 for being in possession of the purview of Section 15 NDPS Act. As per his custody certificate, he is not SB-2007 2 Brief facts of the case are that on 23.02 along with other police officials was going from Bus Stand Dariyapur to village Akanwali on foot in connection with Police Alert Operation and crime detection, they saw the appellant, having waist, sat behind the bushes, after seeing the police. On suspicion, he apprehended. Upon search of gathri, 14 kgs of Poppy Husk was recovered. Subsequently, FIR (supra) was registered under Sect Learned amicus curiae for the appellant there are material contradictions in the testimonies of PW 5 i.e. HC Keshav Dutt regarding the affixation of seals on the further contends that the link evidence in the prosecution case is defective, which cannot be taken into consideration. an unexplained delay in sending the representative sample to the forensic science laboratory. She further submits that no independent witness was joined to lend any credence to the case set up by the prosecution. that the appellant has already undergone total custody period of 04 months and and is not involved in any other criminal case. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the appellant as the learned Court below has passed a well based on correct appreciation of evidence available o not deserve any leniency. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record with their able assistance, it transpires that the appellant was convicted for being in possession of 14 kg of Poppy Husk, w of Section 15 NDPS Act. As per his custody certificate, he is not 23.02.2002, when ASI Rajinder going from Bus Stand Dariyapur to Police Alert Operation patrolling they saw the appellant, having tied a gathri around his waist, sat behind the bushes, after seeing the police. On suspicion, he was kgs of Poppy Husk was recovered. was registered under Section 15 of the NDPS Act. for the appellant inter alia contends that there are material contradictions in the testimonies of PW-7 i.e. ASI Rajinder 5 i.e. HC Keshav Dutt regarding the affixation of seals on the further contends that the link evidence in the prosecution case is defective, which cannot be taken into consideration. She submits that there is an unexplained delay in sending the representative sample to the forensic mits that no independent witness was joined to lend any credence to the case set up by the prosecution. Lastly, she submits gone total custody period of 04 months and and is not involved in any other criminal case. , 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 Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record with their able assistance, it transpires that the appellant was kg of Poppy Husk, which falls under of Section 15 NDPS Act. As per his custody certificate, he is not MANISHA 2025.03.25 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-1153-SB involved in any other case and has already undergone months and 07 days out of total sentence of there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Section 15 NDPS Act, the non-commercial quantity the interest of justice, if the sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period already underg 7. In Deo Narain Mandal vs. State of U.P. (2004) 7 SCC 257 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 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 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 of AP AIR 2017 SC 1166 serves a social purpose as it acts as a deterrent by making the accused 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 which the crime was committed and the conduct of the accused to strike a SB-2007 3 involved in any other case and has already undergone days out of total sentence of 01 year there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Section 15 NDPS Act, commercial quantity, 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. Deo Narain Mandal vs. State of U.P. (2004) 7 SCC 257 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 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 rsh nor does it come across as lenient. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 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 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 the conduct of the accused to strike a involved in any other case and has already undergone an actual sentence of 04 01 year, in the instant case. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Section 15 NDPS Act, for 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 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 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 rsh nor does it come across as lenient. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravada Sasikala vs. State , 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 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 MANISHA 2025.03.25 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-1153-SB balance between the efficacy of law and the chances of reformation of the accused. 9. A perusal of the judgment of conv 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 agony of trial for law-abiding citizen and desires to live a peaceful life. 10. Therefore, in view of the discussion above, disposed of in the following terms: (i) The judgment dated Additional Sessions (ii) The order of sentence to the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for year and fine of Rs.5,000/ awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by 11. Pending miscellaneous applica disposed of. 12. The High Court Legal Services Authority is directed to remuneration to March 20, 2025 manisha (i) (ii) SB-2007 4 balance between the efficacy of law and the chances of reformation of the A perusal of the judgment of conv trial Court indicates no perversity in its findings and the same is based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record. However, the FIR ) was lodged on 23.02.2002 and the appellant has been suffering the agony of trial for last about 23 years. Since his conviction, he has grown into a abiding citizen and desires to live a peaceful life. Therefore, in view of the discussion above, posed of in the following terms:- (i) The judgment dated 26.05.2007 Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad (ii) The order of sentence of even date i.e. 2 to the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for year and fine of Rs.5,000/- along with default mechanism awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by him. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand The High Court Legal Services Authority is directed to the learned Amicus Curiae as per rules. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR 5 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable balance between the efficacy of law and the chances of reformation of the 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 and the appellant has been suffering the years. Since his conviction, he has grown into a abiding citizen and desires to live a peaceful life. Therefore, in view of the discussion above, both the appeals are 26.05.2007 passed by the learned Fatehabad is upheld. of even date i.e. 26.05.2007 is modified to the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 01 along with default mechanism awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period of sentence tion(s), if any, shall also stand The High Court Legal Services Authority is directed to pay as per rules. HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No MANISHA 2025.03.25 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment