673 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA BALJIT SNGH STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON’BLE MR. Present: Ms for the Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG, Punjab. HARPREET SINGH BRAR 1. The prayer in the present appeal is conviction and order of sentence dated 05.07.2007 Special Court, Jalandhar, for the offence punishable under Section Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter stemming from FIR No. Act at Police Station 2. The appellant was sentenced as mentioned below: Section 18 and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 3. Brief facts of the case are that on along with other police officials IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH BALJIT SNGH V/S PUNJAB HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Ms. Aiman J. Chishti, Advocate as for the appellant. Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG, Punjab. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) The prayer in the present appeal is and order of sentence dated 05.07.2007 Special Court, Jalandhar, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced the offence punishable under Section 18 otropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter stemming from FIR No.183 dated 15.12.2002 under Section Act at Police Station Adampur. The appellant was sentenced as mentioned below: Offence 18 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year Rs.1,000/ of fine, to further undergo month. Brief facts of the case are that on other police officials and independent witness, were present at Bus IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-S-1925-SB-2007 Date of decision: 27.03.2025 ...APPELLANT ...RESPONDENT HARPREET SINGH BRAR as amicus curiae The prayer in the present appeal is to set aside the judgment of and order of sentence dated 05.07.2007 passed by learned Judge, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and otropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter ‘NDPS Act’), in the case under Section 18 of the NDPS The appellant was sentenced as mentioned below: Sentence Rigorous imprisonment for a period one year and to pay fine of ,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for 01 Brief facts of the case are that on 15.02.2002, ASI Amar Nath independent witness, were present at Bus MANISHA 2025.04.04 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-1925-SB- Stop Dhogri towards turn of village Madhur, on a scooter. The police party stopped him and asked him to show the documents of the scooter. The appellant failed to show the papers. Upon search of scooter, 250 grams of Opium, wrapped in a polythene paper in its front basket was recover Section 18 of the NDPS Act 4. Learned the entire case of the prosecution is based upon the testimonies of official witnesses. One person, namely Sadha Singh, independent witness, was not examined by the prosecution. She further contends that the person, who arranged been examined. She submits that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the defence led by the appellant, which clearly falsifies the case set up by ASI Amar Nath. She further submits that there is a delay in sen representative sample in the office of Chemical Examiner, as discernible from Ex.PA. Lastly, she submits that the custody period of he is not involve 5. Per contra appellant as the learned Court below has passed a well based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record as such, he does not deserve any le 6. 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 -2007 2 Stop Dhogri towards turn of village Madhur, when appellant on a scooter. The police party stopped him and asked him to show the documents of the scooter. The appellant failed to show the papers. Upon search of scooter, 250 grams of Opium, wrapped in a polythene paper in its front basket was recovered. Subsequently, FIR of the NDPS Act. Learned amicus curiae for the appellant the entire case of the prosecution is based upon the testimonies of official witnesses. One person, namely Sadha Singh, independent witness, was not examined by the prosecution. She further contends that the person, who arranged the scale and the weights, has also not been examined. She submits that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the defence led by the appellant, which clearly falsifies the case set up by ASI Amar Nath. She further submits that there is a delay in sen representative sample in the office of Chemical Examiner, as discernible from Ex.PA. Lastly, she submits that the appellant has already under custody period of 07 months and 01 day, out of total sentence of he is not involved in any other case. 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, he does not deserve any leniency. 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 250 grams of Opium when appellant was seen coming on a scooter. The police party stopped him and asked him to show the documents of the scooter. The appellant failed to show the papers. Upon search of scooter, 250 grams of Opium, wrapped in a polythene paper in its Subsequently, FIR (supra) was registered under for the appellant inter alia contends that the entire case of the prosecution is based upon the testimonies of official witnesses. One person, namely Sadha Singh, who was joined as an independent witness, was not examined by the prosecution. She further cale and the weights, has also not been examined. She submits that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the defence led by the appellant, which clearly falsifies the case set up by ASI Amar Nath. She further submits that there is a delay in sending the representative sample in the office of Chemical Examiner, as discernible from appellant has already undergone total , out of total sentence of one year and , 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 Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record with their able assistance, it transpires that the appellant was 250 grams of Opium, which falls under MANISHA 2025.04.04 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-1925-SB- the purview of Section already undergone sentence of one year punishment prescribed under Section 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. 7. 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 prescribed by the statute with regard to the period of sentence, a discretionary element is vested in the Court. Background 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 whimsicall 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'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. 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 -2007 3 of Section 18 NDPS Act. As per his custody certificate, already undergone an actual sentence of 07 months and one year, in the instant case. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Section 18 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. Deo Narain Mandal vs. State of U.P. (2004) 7 SCC 257 le 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 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 whimsicall 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 at large. 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 NDPS Act. As per his custody certificate, he has months and 01 day out of total in the instant case. 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 the sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period already Deo Narain Mandal vs. State of U.P. (2004) 7 SCC 257, the le 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. 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 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 MANISHA 2025.04.04 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-1925-SB- which the crime was c balance between the efficacy of law and the chances of reformation of the accused. 9. A perusal of the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court indicates no perversity in its findings an correct appreciation of evidence available on record. However, the FIR (supra) was lodged on agony of trial for into a law-abiding citizen and desires to live a peaceful life. 10. 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 year awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period of sent already undergone by 11. The High Court Legal Services Authority is directed to remuneration to March 27, 2025 manisha (i) (ii) -2007 4 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 an correct appreciation of evidence available on record. However, the FIR ) was lodged on 15.12.2002 and the appellant has been suffering the agony of trial for last more than 22 years. Since his conviction, he has grown 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 05.07.2007 Special Court, Jalandhar is upheld. (ii) The order of sentence of even date i.e. to the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for year and fine of Rs.1,000/- along with default mechanism awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period of sent already undergone by him. The High Court Legal Services Authority is directed to the learned Amicus Curiae as per rules. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR 5 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable ommitted 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 and the appellant has been suffering the years. Since his conviction, he has grown abiding citizen and desires to live a peaceful life. Therefore, in view of the discussion above, the present appeal is 05.07.2007 passed by the learned Judge, of even date i.e. 05.07.2007 is modified to the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one along with default mechanism awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period of sentence The High Court Legal Services Authority is directed to pay as per rules. HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No MANISHA 2025.04.04 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment