790 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA BALBIR SINGH STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON’BLE MR. Present: Mr. Mr. Nitesh Sharma, DAG, Punjab. HARPREET SINGH BRAR 1. The prayer in the present appeal is to set conviction and order of sentence dated 21.08.2007 Special Court, Bathinda, for the offence punishable under Section Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter the case stemming from FIR No. Section 15 of NDPS 2. The appellant of Poppy Husk, Section 15 Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH BALBIR SINGH @ PAPPU V/S PUNJAB HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. Ashish Grover, Advocate for the Mr. Nitesh Sharma, DAG, Punjab. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) The prayer in the present appeal is to set conviction and order of sentence dated 21.08.2007 Special Court, Bathinda, whereby the appellant the offence punishable under Section 15 (b) pic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter the case stemming from FIR No.123 dated 16.09.2003 registered of NDPS Act at Police Station Sangat, District Bathinda. The appellant was sentenced for keeping in his possession as mentioned below: Offence 15 (b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years Rs.5,000/ of fine, to further undergo months. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-S-116-SB-2008 Date of decision: 03.04.2025 ...APPELLANT ...RESPONDENT HARPREET SINGH BRAR Advocate for the appellant. The prayer in the present appeal is to set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.08.2007 passed by learned Judge, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced (b) of the Narcotic Drugs and referred to as ‘NDPS Act’), in 123 dated 16.09.2003 registered under Act at Police Station Sangat, District Bathinda. for keeping in his possession 33 kgs. Sentence Rigorous imprisonment for a period four years and to pay fine of 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for 06 MANISHA 2025.04.04 18:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-116-SB 3. Learned Counsel for the the impugned judgment of conviction dated Judge, Special Court, Bathinda modification of the order on quantum of sentence sentence already undergone by the appellant the appellant has undergone a period of involved in any other case. 4. 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. 5. 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 the purview of Section appellant has undergone a period of sentence of four years no minimum punishment prescribed under Section commercial quantity of justice, if the sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to already undergone by 6. 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 the period of sentence, a discretionary SB-2008 2 Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 21.08.2007 Judge, Special Court, Bathinda on merits and restricts his prayer to modification of the order on quantum of sentence sentence already undergone by the appellant. As per the custody certificate, the appellant has undergone a period of 10 months and 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 33 kgs of Poppy Husk, of Section 15 NDPS Act. As per the custody certificate, the appellant has undergone a period of 10 months and four years and he is not involved in any other case no minimum punishment prescribed under Section 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 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 the statute with regard to the period of sentence, a discretionary submits that he is not assailing 21.08.2007 passed by learned merits and restricts his prayer to modification of the order on quantum of sentence dated 21.08.2007 to that of As per the custody certificate, months and 17 days and he is not , 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 Poppy Husk, which falls under As per the custody certificate, the months and 17 days out of total not involved in any other case. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Section 15 NDPS Act, for the non- 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 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 statute with regard to the period of sentence, a discretionary MANISHA 2025.04.04 18:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-116-SB 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 consid 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 excessively harsh nor does it come across as lenient. 7. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in of AP AIR 2017 SC 1166 serves a social purpose as it acts as a deter 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 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. 8. A perus 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 into law-abiding citizen 9. Therefore, in view of the discussion above, disposed of in the foll SB-2008 3 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 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 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 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 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 16.09.2003 and the appellant agony of trial for last more than 21 years. Since abiding citizen and desires to live a peaceful life. Therefore, in view of the discussion above, disposed of in the following terms:- 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, ered 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. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravada Sasikala vs. State , has reiterated that the imposition of sentence also rent 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 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 al 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 to live a peaceful life. Therefore, in view of the discussion above, present appeal is MANISHA 2025.04.04 18:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-116-SB (i) The judgment dated Special Court, Bathinda (ii) The order of sentence the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for years awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by April 03, 2025 manisha (i) (ii) SB-2008 4 (i) The judgment dated 21.08.2007 Special Court, Bathinda is upheld. (ii) The order of sentence of even date the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for years 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. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 21.08.2007 passed by the learned Judge, of even date 21.08.2007 is modified to the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for four along with default mechanism awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period of sentence HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No MANISHA 2025.04.04 18:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment