792 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ANGREJ SINGH STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON’BLE MR. Present: Mr. for the Mr. Nitesh Sharma, DAG, Punjab. HARPREET SINGH BRAR 1. The prayer in the conviction and order of sentence dated Special Court, Bathinda for the offence punishable under Section Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter the case stemming from FIR No. 15 of NDPS Act at Police Station 2. The appellant of Poppy Husk, Section 15 Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ANGREJ SINGH @ LADDU AND ANOTHER V/S PUNJAB HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. Sukhdeep Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Nitesh Sharma, DAG, Punjab. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) The prayer in the present appeal is to set aside the conviction and order of sentence dated 03.01.2008 Special Court, Bathinda whereby the appellants were the offence punishable under Section 15 Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter the case stemming from FIR No.90 dated 05.07.2003 Act at Police Station Dialpura. The appellants were sentenced for keeping in as mentioned below: Offence 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Rigorous imprisonment for a period of 03 years each Rs.3,000/ payment of fine, to further undergo RI for 02 months each. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-S-139-SB-2008 Date of decision: 03.04.2025 ANOTHER ...APPELLANTS ...RESPONDENT HARPREET SINGH BRAR Advocate present appeal is to set aside the judgment of 03.01.2008 passed by learned Judge, s were convicted and sentenced 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and referred to as ‘NDPS Act’), in 05.07.2003 registered under Section for keeping in possession 30 kgs Sentence Rigorous imprisonment for a period 03 years each and to pay fine of 3,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 02 months each. MANISHA 2025.04.04 18:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-139-SB 3. Learned Counsel for the assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated learned Judge, Special Court, Bathinda modification of the order on quantum of sentence sentence already undergone by the appellant the appellants have involved in any other case. 4. Per contra appellants 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-Angrej Singh the appellant-Ranjit Singh has undergone a period of 06 months and 16 and they are not involved in any other case punishment prescribed under Section quantity this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the in the sentence awarded to the appellant undergone by them 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 SB-2008 2 Learned Counsel for the appellant assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated Judge, Special Court, Bathinda on merits and restricts his prayer to modification of the order on quantum of sentence sentence already undergone by the appellants. As per the custody certificate s have undergone a period of more than involved in any other case. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the 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 30 kgs of Poppy Husk, of Section 15 NDPS Act. As per the Angrej Singh has undergone a period of Ranjit Singh has undergone a period of 06 months and 16 not involved in any other 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 in the sentence awarded to the appellants is reduced to the period already them. 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 appellants submits that he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 03.01.2008 passed by merits and restricts his prayer to modification of the order on quantum of sentence dated 03.01.2008 to that of As per the custody certificates, more than 06 months and are not , learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the as the learned Court below has passed a well-reasoned judgment based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record as such, they do Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record with their able assistance, it transpires that the appellants were Poppy Husk, which falls under As per their custody certificates, the has undergone a period of 06 months and 18 days and Ranjit Singh has undergone a period of 06 months and 16 days . Since there is no minimum NDPS Act, for the non-commercial this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice, if is reduced to the period already 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 MANISHA 2025.04.04 18:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-139-SB prescribed by the statute with regard to the period of sentence, a discretionary element is vested in the Court. 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 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. 7. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme 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 society 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. 8. A perusal of the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court indicates no perversity in its f correct appreciation of evidence available on record. However, the FIR (supra) was lodged on agony of trial for grown into law-abiding citizen SB-2008 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, 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 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 society 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 rime 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 05.07.2003 and the appellant agony of trial for last more than 21 years. Since abiding citizens and desire to live a peaceful life. prescribed by the statute with regard to the period of sentence, a discretionary 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. 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 rime 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 indings and the same is based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record. However, the FIR and the appellants have been suffering the years. Since their conviction, they have to live a peaceful life. MANISHA 2025.04.04 18:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-139-SB 9. Therefore, in view of the discussion above, disposed of in the following terms: (i) The judgment dated Special Court, (ii) The order of sentence to the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for years each mechanism awarded to the appellant sentence already undergone by April 03, 2025 manisha (i) (ii) SB-2008 4 Therefore, in view of the discussion above, disposed of in the following terms:- (i) The judgment dated 03.01.2008 Special Court, Bathinda is upheld. (ii) The order of sentence of even date to the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for years each and fine of Rs.3,000/ mechanism awarded to the appellant sentence already undergone by them (HARPREET SINGH BRAR Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable Therefore, in view of the discussion above, present appeal is 03.01.2008 passed by the learned Judge, of even date i.e. 03.01.2008 is modified to the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 03 3,000/- each along with default mechanism awarded to the appellants is reduced to the period of them. HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No MANISHA 2025.04.04 18:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment