637 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA BALDEV SINGH STATE OF HARYANA CORAM: HON’BLE MR. Present: Mr. for the Mr. Harkesh Kumar, AAG, Haryana. HARPREET SINGH BRAR 1. The prayer in the present conviction and order of sentence dated 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 BALDEV SINGH V/S HARYANA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. Jitender Dhanda, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Harkesh Kumar, AAG, Haryana. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) The prayer in the present appeal is to set aside the conviction and order of sentence dated 07.08.2007 Additional 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 two Rs.10,000/ payment of fine, to further undergo SI for three IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-S-1697-SB-2007 Date of decision: 26.03.2025 ...APPELLANT ...RESPONDENT HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. Harkesh Kumar, AAG, Haryana. appeal is to set aside the judgment of 07.08.2007 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.61 dated 19.01.2003 Act at Police Station City Fatehabad. nced as mentioned below: Sentence Rigorous imprisonment for a period years and to pay fine of 00/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months. MANISHA 2025.04.02 16:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-1697-SB 3. Brief facts of the case are that Kumar along with other police officials was present at appellant was seen coming head. On seeing the police, he apprehended on suspicion. Upon search of 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 the appellant has undergone a period of 07 months and 24 days and is not involved in any other case, out of total sentence of two years, in the instant case. 5. Per 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 lear the record with their able assistance, it transpires that the appellant convicted for being in possession of the purview of Section 15 NDPS Act. appellant has undergone a period of 07 months and 24 days and is not involved in any other case, out of total sentence of two years, in the instant SB-2007 2 Brief facts of the case are that on 19.01.2003 along with other police officials was present at appellant was seen coming on the left bank of the canal having a bag on his On seeing the police, he threw the bag and apprehended on suspicion. Upon search of bag 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 07.08.2007 Additional 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 per the custody certificate, the appellant has undergone a period of 07 months and 24 days and is not involved in any other case, out of total sentence of two years, in the instant 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 30 kgs of of Section 15 NDPS Act. As per the custody certificate, the appellant has undergone a period of 07 months and 24 days and is not involved in any other case, out of total sentence of two years, in the instant 19.01.2003, when ASI Ramesh along with other police officials was present at village Bhodia Khera, on the left bank of the canal having a bag on his threw the bag and tried to run away, but was bag, 30 kgs of Poppy Husk was was registered under Section 15 of the submits that he is not assailing 07.08.2007 passed by learned on merits and restricts his prayer to modification of the order on quantum of sentence dated 07.08.2007 to that of As per the custody certificate, the appellant has undergone a period of 07 months and 24 days and is not involved in any other case, out of total sentence of two years, in the instant , 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 ned 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 appellant has undergone a period of 07 months and 24 days and is not involved in any other case, out of total sentence of two years, in the instant MANISHA 2025.04.02 16:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-1697-SB case. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Section 15 NDPS Act, for the non would 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. (200 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 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 ar 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 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 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 Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Section 15 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 him. Deo Narain Mandal vs. State of U.P. (200 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 ar 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 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 Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Section 15 this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice, if the sentence awarded to the appellant is . 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 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. '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 MANISHA 2025.04.02 16:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-1697-SB 9. A perusal of the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court indicates no pervers 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 Sessions (ii) The order of sentence the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for years awarded to the appellant is reduced to t already undergone by March 26, 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 19.01.2003 and the appellant agony of trial for last more than 22 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 07.08.2007 Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad (ii) The order of sentence of even date the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for years and fine of Rs.10,000/- along with default mechanism awarded to the appellant is reduced to t already undergone by him. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR 5 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable A perusal of the judgment of conviction passed by the learned ity 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 07.08.2007 passed by the learned Fatehabad is upheld. of even date 07.08.2007 is modified to the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two along with default mechanism awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period of sentence HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No MANISHA 2025.04.02 16:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment