CRA-S-1640-SB-2007 (O&M) 1 624 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-S-1640-SB-2007 (O&M) Date of Decision: 26.03.2025 JASBIR SINGH ...APPELLANT Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Jaiveer Singh, Advocate as Amicus Curiae for the appellant. Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG Punjab. *** Harpreet Singh Brar, J. (Oral) 1. Present appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment of conviction and order on quantum of sentence dated 05.07.2007 passed by learned Judge, Special Court, Barnala vide which the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as mentioned below: Offence under Section Sentence Fine Sentence in default of payment of fine 15 of NDPS Act Rigorous imprisonment for 06 months Rs. 500/- Rigorous imprisonment for one month 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 03.07.2006, SI Kulwant Singh along with other police officials, in connection with patrolling duty, while in police Gypsy, was proceeding from village Mehta towards village Rureke Kalan. When the police party reached near the canal bridge of village Rureke Kalan, at about 2.10 PM, one young man was seen coming from the side of village Rureke Kalan, carrying a plastic bag in his hand. On seeing the police party, he got purplexed and tried to turn back. On suspicion accused-appellant was apprehended. On the basis of suspicion, search of the appellant-accused along with his belongings was conducted. Thereafter, on search of plastic bag, AJAY GOSWAMI 2025.04.01 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-1640-SB-2007 (O&M) 2 held by the appellant, poppy husk was recovered. Out of the bulk of poppy husk, two samples each of 250 grams were separated and remaining on weighment was found to be 5 kilograms. All the parcels were sealed. FIR(supra) was registered under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘NDPS Act’). 3. Learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant inter alia contends that the entire case of the prosecution hinges upon the testimonies of official witnesses. One Boota Singh was joined as independent witness, but he was not examined by the prosecution for the reasons best known to them and mandatory provisions of Section 42, 50, 55 and 57 of NDPS Act were not complied with. Further, there is a delay in depositing the representative sample in Forensic Science Laboratory as discernible from the statements of PW-1 Constable Krishan Kumar and PW-2 HC Sarabjit Singh. There are material contradictions in the testimonies of official witnesses rendering them unworthy of any reliance. Further, the appellant is not involved in any other case and has undergone around 02 months and 10 days of custody out of total sentence of 06 months awarded to him. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the appellant on the ground that learned trial Court has passed a well-reasoned judgment based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record and as such, the appellant does 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 was convicted for being in possession of 5.500 kilograms of poppy husk, attracting the offence under Section 15 of NDPS Act, for which no minimum punishment has been prescribed. Appellant has already undergone custody of around 02 months and AJAY GOSWAMI 2025.04.01 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-1640-SB-2007 (O&M) 3 10 days out of total sentence of 06 months, in the instant case. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Section 15 of 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. 6. In Deo Narain Mandal v. State of UP (2004) 7 SCC 257, a three Judge bench of 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. 7. Further, a two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravada Sasikala v. 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 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. AJAY GOSWAMI 2025.04.01 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-1640-SB-2007 (O&M) 4 8. A perusal of the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court indicates no perversity in its findings and the said judgment is based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record. However, the FIR (supra) was lodged on 03.07.2006 and the appellant has been suffering the agony of trial for last more than 18 years. Since his conviction, the appellant has reformed into a law-abiding citizen and intends to live a peaceful life. 9. Therefore, in view of the discussion above, the present appeal is disposed of in the following terms:- (i) The judgment dated 05.07.2007 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, Barnala is upheld. (ii) The order of sentence dated 05.07.2007 is modified to the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 06 months along with fine of Rs. 500/- with default mechanism awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by him. 10. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 11. High Court Legal Services Committee is directed to pay remuneration to the Amicus Curiae, as per rules. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 26.03.2025 Ajay Goswami Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No AJAY GOSWAMI 2025.04.01 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document