560 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA GURMEET KAUR STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON’BLE MR. Present: Mr. Mr. Priyavrat Parashar, Advocate and Mr. Neeraj Goel, Advocate Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG, Punjab. HARPREET SINGH BRAR 1. The prayer in the present appeal is to set aside the conviction and order of sentence dated 18.05.2007 Additional Sessions and sentenced for Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter ‘NDPS Act’), registered under Section 15 of NDPS 2. The appellant Section 15 Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH GURMEET KAUR V/S PUNJAB HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. Bhavdeep Singh Mamli, Advocate Mr. Priyavrat Parashar, Advocate and Mr. Neeraj Goel, Advocate for the appellant Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG, Punjab. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) The prayer in the present appeal is to set aside the conviction and order of sentence dated 18.05.2007 Sessions Judge, Fatehabad, whereby the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 15 Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter , in the case stemming from FIR No. under Section 15 of NDPS Act at Police Station 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-1176-SB-2007 Date of decision: 24.03.2025 ...APPELLANT ...RESPONDENT HARPREET SINGH BRAR Advocate and Mr. Priyavrat Parashar, Advocate and appellant. The prayer in the present appeal is to set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.05.2007 passed by learned whereby the appellant was convicted the offence punishable under Section 15(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as in the case stemming from FIR No.36 dated 07.02.2005 Act at Police Station Ratia. sentenced as mentioned below: Sentence Rigorous imprisonment for a period one year and to pay fine of 00/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for 05 months. MANISHA 2025.03.26 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-1176-SB 3. Brief facts of the case are that ASI Jagdish Prasad new bus stand, Ratia in connection with the appellant, carrying a plastic bag apprehended. Upon search of plastic bag, recovered. Subsequently, FIR NDPS Act. 4. Learned Counsel for the the impugned judgment of conviction dated Additional Sessions modification of the order on quantum of sentence sentence already undergone by the appellant as actual custody period of year imposed upon 5. Per contra appellant as the learned Court below has passed a well based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record as such, not deserve any leniency. 6. Having heard learned c the record with their able assistance, it transpires that the appellant convicted for being in possession of the purview of Section 15 NDPS Act. As per involved in any other case and 04 months and 26 days, Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Section 15 NDPS SB-2007 2 Brief facts of the case are that on Jagdish Prasad along with other police officials was new bus stand, Ratia in connection with patrolling. In the meantime, the appellant, carrying a plastic bag upon her head apprehended. Upon search of plastic bag, 10 Subsequently, FIR (supra) was registered under Section 15 of the Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 18.05.2007 Sessions Judge, Fatehabad on merits and restricts his prayer to modification of the order on quantum of sentence sentence already undergone by the appellant as custody period of 04 months and 26 days, imposed upon her and she is not involved in any other 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 on record as such, deserve any leniency. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record with their able assistance, it transpires that the appellant convicted for being in possession of 10 kgs of of Section 15 NDPS Act. As per her involved in any other case and has already undergone a total custody period of months and 26 days, out of total sentence of Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Section 15 NDPS on 07.02.2005 at about 9:45 PM, along with other police officials was present in the area of patrolling. In the meantime, they saw upon her head and on suspicion, she was 10 Kgs of poppy husk was was registered under Section 15 of the submits that he is not assailing 18.05.2007 passed by learned on merits and restricts his prayer to modification of the order on quantum of sentence dated 18.05.2007 to that of sentence already undergone by the appellant as she has already undergone months and 26 days, out of total sentence of one involved in any other 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, she does ounsel for the parties and after perusing the record with their able assistance, it transpires that the appellant was poppy husk, which falls under her custody certificate, she is not has already undergone a total custody period of out of total sentence of one year, in the instant case. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Section 15 NDPS MANISHA 2025.03.26 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-1176-SB Act, for the non be in the interest of justice, if the sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by 7. In Deo Narain Mandal vs. State of U.P. (2004) 7 SCC 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 Cou 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 arbitraril 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 Sup of AP AIR 2017 SC 1166 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 soc 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 balance between the efficacy of law and the chances of reformation of the accused. SB-2007 3 for the non-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 her. Deo Narain Mandal vs. State of U.P. (2004) 7 SCC 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 arbitraril 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. 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 realise the damage caused not only to the victim but also to the soc 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 he 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 this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice, if the sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced 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 rt. 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. reme 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 circumstances of each case by noticing the nature of the crime, the manner in he 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 MANISHA 2025.03.26 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-1176-SB 9. A perusal of the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court indicates no perversity in i correct appreciation of evidence available on record. However, the FIR (supra) was lodged on agony of trial for into law-abiding citizen 10. Therefore, in view of the discussion above, disposed of in the following terms: (i) The judgment dated Additional (ii) The order of sentence the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for and fine of Rs. the appellant is reduced to the undergone by March 24, 2025 manisha (i) (ii) SB-2007 4 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 ) was lodged on 07.02.2005 and the appellant agony of trial for last more than 20 years. Since abiding citizen and desires to live a peaceful life. Therefore, in view of the discussion above, disposed of in the following terms:- (i) The judgment dated 18.05.2007 Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad (ii) The order of sentence of even date the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for and fine of Rs.5,000/- along with default mechanism awarded to the appellant is reduced to the undergone by her. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR 5 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable A perusal of the judgment of conviction passed by the learned ts 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 her conviction, she has grown to live a peaceful life. Therefore, in view of the discussion above, present appeal is 18.05.2007 passed by the learned Fatehabad is upheld. of even date 18.05.2007 is modified to the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 01 year along with default mechanism awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period of sentence already HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No MANISHA 2025.03.26 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment