1082 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA DARSHAN LAL THE STATE OF CORAM: HON’BLE MR. Present: Ms. Vini Rana, Mr. S.P.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG, Punjab. HARPREET SINGH BRAR 1. The conviction dated 22.09.2008 learned Special Judge, Ferozepur, sentenced for the offence punishable under Section and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter Act’), in the case stemming from FIR No. under Section 21 2. The appellant grams of Smack Section 21 Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DARSHAN LAL V/S STATE OF PUNJAB HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Ms. Vini Rana, Advocate for Mr. S.P.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG, Punjab. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) The prayer in the present appeal is to set aside the dated 22.09.2008 and order of sentence dated 2 Special Judge, Ferozepur, whereby the appellant the offence punishable under Section and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter in the case stemming from FIR No.437 dated 21 of NDPS Act at Police Station Sadar Ferozepur. The appellant was sentenced for keeping in his possession Smack, as mentioned below: Offence 21(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year Rs.10,000 payment of fine, to further undergo RI for 03 months. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-S-1865-SB-2008 Date of decision: 02.05.2025 ...APPELLANT ...RESPONDENT HARPREET SINGH BRAR prayer in the present appeal is to set aside the judgment of and order of sentence dated 23.09.2008 passed by whereby the appellant was convicted and the offence punishable under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ‘NDPS 437 dated 03.12.2002 registered on Sadar Ferozepur. for keeping in his possession 10 Sentence Rigorous imprisonment for a period one year and to pay fine of 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 03 months. MANISHA 2025.05.07 09:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-1865-SB 3. Learned Counsel for the assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated learned Special Judge, Ferozepur 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 their able assistance, it transpires that the convicted for being in possession of purview of Section appellant has undergone a period of sentence of one year, case. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Section 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 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 prescribed by the statute with regard to the period of sentence, a discretionary SB-2008 2 Learned Counsel for the appellant assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated Special Judge, Ferozepur on merits and restricts 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 03 months and 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, deserve any leniency. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record with their able assistance, it transpires that the convicted for being in possession of 10 grams of of Section 21 of NDPS Act. As per the custody certificate, the appellant has undergone a period of 03 months and one year, in the instant case and he is not involved in any other Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Section 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. (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 appellant submits that she is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 22.09.2008 passed by on merits and restricts her prayer to modification of the order on quantum of sentence dated 23.09.2008 to that of As per the custody certificate, months and 18 days and he is not , 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 of Smack, which falls under the As per the custody certificate, the months and 18 days, out of total he is not involved in any other Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Section 21 of 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 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 MANISHA 2025.05.07 09:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-1865-SB element is vested in the Court. Background of each case, whi 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, 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 9. Therefore, in view of the discussion above, disposed of in the following terms: SB-2008 3 element is vested in the Court. Background of each case, whi 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 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 03.12.2002 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:- 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 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. Therefore, in view of the discussion above, present appeal is MANISHA 2025.05.07 09:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-1865-SB (i) The judgment dated Judge, Ferozepur (ii) The order of extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for and fine of Rs. the appellant is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by May 02, 2025 manisha (i) (ii) SB-2008 4 (i) The judgment dated 22.09.2008 Judge, Ferozepur is upheld. (ii) The order of sentence dated 23.09.2008 extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for and fine of Rs.10,000/- along with default mechanism awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by him. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 22.09.2008 passed by the learned Special dated 23.09.2008 is modified to the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year along with default mechanism awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period of sentence already HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No MANISHA 2025.05.07 09:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment