677 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ISHWAR @ KALA STATE OF HARYANA CORAM: HON’BLE MR. Present: Mr. (through video conferencing) Mr. Harkesh Kumar, AAG, Haryana. HARPREET SINGH BRAR 1. The prayer conviction and order of sentence dated learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Hisar, convicted and sentenced the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ 10.12.2004 registered Agroha. 2. The appellant and 300 grams of Section 15/61/85 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH @ KALA V/S HARYANA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. Sunil Saharan, Advocate for the (through video conferencing) 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 27.08.2007 Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Hisar, convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter ‘NDPS Act’), in the case stemming from FIR No. registered under Section 15/61/85 of NDPS The appellant was sentenced for keeping in his possession 300 grams of Chura Post, as mentioned below: Offence 15/61/85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, Rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years Rs.1000/ of fine, to further undergo IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-S-1935-SB-2007 Date of decision: 21.05.2025 ...APPELLANT ...RESPONDENT HARPREET SINGH BRAR Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Harkesh Kumar, AAG, Haryana. in the present appeal is to set aside the judgment of 27.08.2007/01.09.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Hisar, whereby the appellant was the offence punishable under Section 15/61/85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter in the case stemming from FIR No.251 dated of NDPS Act at Police Station for keeping in his possession 20 kgs as mentioned below: Sentence Rigorous imprisonment for a period four years and to pay fine of /- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for 30 MANISHA 2025.05.26 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-1935-SB 3. Learned Counsel for the the impugned judgment of conviction dated Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Hisar 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 convicted for being in possession of which falls under the custody certificate, the appellant has undergone a days, out of total sentence of involved in any other case. under Section 15/61/85 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 6. In Deo Narain Mandal vs. State of U.P. (2004) 7 SCC 257 Hon'ble Supreme Court formality in criminal cases. When a minimum and maximum term is SB-2007 2 days. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 27.08.2007 Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Hisar 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 09 months and involved in any other case. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the nt 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 20 kgs and 300 grams which falls under the purview of Sections 15/61/85 custody certificate, the appellant has undergone a out of total sentence of four years, in the instant case involved in any other case. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed 15/61/85 NDPS Act, for the non-commercial quantity 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 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 submits that he is not assailing 27.08.2007 passed by learned on merits and restricts his prayer to modification of the order on quantum of sentence dated 01.09.2007 to that of As per the custody certificate, months and 08 days and he is not , learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the nt 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 their able assistance, it transpires that the appellant was 20 kgs and 300 grams of Chura Post, 15/61/85 NDPS Act. As per the custody certificate, the appellant has undergone a period of 09 months and 08 in the instant case and he is not Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed 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. (2004) 7 SCC 257, the has opined that awarding of sentence is not a mere formality in criminal cases. When a minimum and maximum term is MANISHA 2025.05.26 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-1935-SB prescribed by the statute with regard to the period of sentence, a discretionary element is vested in the Court. Background of each case, whi factors like gravity of th 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, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 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 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 con 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 findings and the same is based correct appreciation of evidence available on record. However, the FIR (supra) was lodged on agony of trial for into law-abiding citizen SB-2007 3 prescribed by the statute with regard to the period of sentence, a discretionary element is vested in the Court. Background of each case, whi 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 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 at large. The ard 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 trial Court indicates no perversity in its findings and the same is based correct appreciation of evidence available on record. However, the FIR ) was lodged on 10.12.2004 and the appellant agony of trial for last more than 20 years. Since abiding citizen and desires to live a peaceful life. 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 e 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 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 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 ard 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 duct 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 and the appellant has been suffering the years. Since his conviction, he has grown to live a peaceful life. MANISHA 2025.05.26 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-1935-SB 9. Therefore, in view of the discussion above, disposed of in the following terms: (i) The judgment dated Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Hisar (ii) extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for and fine is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by May 21, 2025 manisha (i) (ii) SB-2007 4 Therefore, in view of the discussion above, disposed of in the following terms:- (i) The judgment dated 27.08.2007 Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Hisar (ii) The order of sentence dated 01.09.2007 extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for and fine along with default mechanism awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by (HARPREET SINGH BRAR Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable Therefore, in view of the discussion above, present appeal is 27.08.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Hisar is upheld. 01.09.2007 is modified to the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for four years along with default mechanism awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by him. HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No MANISHA 2025.05.26 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment