646 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA CHHATTRU SINGH AND STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON’BLE MR. Present: Mr. Mr. Arun Kumar Sharma, 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 16.08.2007 Special Court, Mansa, 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 25.200 kgs of Poppy Husk Section 15 Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CHHATTRU SINGH AND ANOTHER V/S PUNJAB HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. Manjit Singh Uppal, Advocate Mr. Arun Kumar Sharma, Advocate 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 16.08.2007 Special Court, Mansa, whereby the appellants were the offence punishable under Section 15 Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter the case stemming from FIR No.90 dated 08.09.2002 registered Act at Police Station Boha. The appellants were sentenced for keeping in Poppy Husk, as mentioned below: Offence 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Rigorous imprisonment for a period of 06 months Rs.3,000 payment of fine, to further undergo RI for 01 month each. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-S-1745-SB-2007 Date of decision: 27.03.2025 ...APPELLANTS ...RESPONDENT HARPREET SINGH BRAR Advocate and Mr. Arun Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the appellants. The prayer in the present appeal is to set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.08.2007 passed by learned Judge, s were convicted and sentenced 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and referred to as ‘NDPS Act’), in 90 dated 08.09.2002 registered under Section for keeping in their possession as mentioned below: Sentence Rigorous imprisonment for a period months each and to pay fine of 3,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 01 month each. MANISHA 2025.04.02 16:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-1745-SB 3. Learned Counsel for the assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated learned Judge, Special Court, Mansa modification of the order on quantum of sentence sentence already undergone by the appellant appellant-Chhattru Singh days and appellant 02 days and both of them 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 the record with their able assistance, it transpires that the appellant convicted for being in possession of under the purview appellant-Chhattr days and appellant 02 days and both of them are minimum punishment prescribed under Section commercial quantity of justice, if the sentence awarded to the appellant already undergone by 6. In Deo Narain Mandal vs. State of U.P Hon'ble Supreme Court has opined that awarding of sentence is not a mere SB-2007 2 Learned Counsel for the appellant assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated learned Judge, Special Court, Mansa on merits and restricts his prayer to modification of the order on quantum of sentence sentence already undergone by the appellants. As per the Chhattru Singh has undergone actual and appellant-Beera Singh has undergone actual period of 04 months and both of them are not involved in any other case. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the pray 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 the record with their able assistance, it transpires that the appellant convicted for being in possession of 25.200 kg purview of Section 15 NDPS Act. As per their custody certificates, Chhattru Singh has undergone actual period of 03 months and 20 days and appellant-Beera Singh has undergone actual period of 04 months and 02 days and both of them are not involved in any other case. 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 already undergone by them. Deo Narain Mandal vs. State of U.P Hon'ble Supreme Court has opined that awarding of sentence is not a mere appellants submits that he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 16.08.2007 passed by on merits and restricts his prayer to modification of the order on quantum of sentence dated 16.08.2007 to that of As per their custody certificates, ctual period of 03 months and 20 Beera Singh has undergone actual period of 04 months and not involved in any other case. , 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 kgs of Poppy Husk, which falls As per their custody certificates, u Singh has undergone actual period of 03 months and 20 Beera Singh has undergone actual period of 04 months and 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 appellants 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 MANISHA 2025.04.02 16:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-1745-SB 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 age of the accused, should be considered while determining the quantum of sentence and this discretion is not to be use 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 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 als 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 manne 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 per correct appreciation of evidence available on record. However, the FIR (supra) was lodged on agony of trial for grown into law-abiding citizen SB-2007 3 formality in criminal cases. When a minimum and maximum term is prescribed by the statute with regard to the period of sentence, a discretionary ted in the Court. Background of each case, which includes factors like gravity of the offence, manner in which the 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. 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 als 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 manne 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 08.09.2002 and the appellant agony of trial for last more than 22 years. Since abiding citizens and desire to live a peaceful life. formality in criminal cases. When a minimum and maximum term is prescribed by the statute with regard to the period of sentence, a discretionary ted 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 d 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. 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 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 versity in its findings 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 2025.04.02 16:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-1745-SB 9. Therefore, in view of the discussion above, disposed of in the following terms: (i) The judgment dated Special Court, Mansa (ii) The order of sentence the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for months awarded to the appellant already undergone by March 27, 2025 manisha (i) (ii) SB-2007 4 Therefore, in view of the discussion above, disposed of in the following terms:- (i) The judgment dated 16.08.2007 Special Court, Mansa is upheld. (ii) The order of sentence of even date the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for months and fine of Rs.3,000 each awarded to the appellants is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by them. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR 5 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable Therefore, in view of the discussion above, present appeal is 16.08.2007 passed by the learned Judge, of even date 16.08.2007 is modified to the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 06 3,000 each along with default mechanism is reduced to the period of sentence HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No MANISHA 2025.04.02 16:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment