1076 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA RANJIT SINGH AND ANOTHER STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON’BLE MR. Present: Mr. Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG, Punjab. HARPREET SINGH BRAR 1. The prayer in the conviction and order of sentence dated Special Court, Muktsar, for the offence punishable under Section Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter the case stemming from FIR No. Section 15 of NDPS 2. The appellant kgs of Poppy Husk Section 15 Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RANJIT SINGH AND ANOTHER V/S PUNJAB HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. Arshdeep Singh Sivia, Advocate for the 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 25.09.200 Special Court, Muktsar, whereby the appellants were the offence punishable under Section 15 Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter the case stemming from FIR No.304 dated of NDPS Act at Police Station Saddar Muktsar. The appellants were sentenced for keeping in his possession Poppy Husk, as mentioned below: Offence 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Rigorous imprisonment for a period of 03 years Rs.25,000 payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-S-1846-SB-2008 Date of decision: 02.05.2025 ...APPELLANTS ...RESPONDENT HARPREET SINGH BRAR Advocate for the appellants. present appeal is to set aside the judgment of 25.09.2008 passed by learned Judge, s were convicted and sentenced 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and referred to as ‘NDPS Act’), in dated 18.12.2002 registered under Saddar Muktsar. for keeping in his possession 35 Sentence Rigorous imprisonment for a period 03 years and to pay fine of 25,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for 06 months each. MANISHA 2025.05.07 09:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-1846-SB-2008 3. Learned Counsel for the assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated learned Judge, Special Court, Muktsar modification of the order on quantum of sentence sentence already undergone by the appellant the appellants ha involved in any other case. 4. Per contra appellants as the learned Court below has passed a well based on correct appreciation of e 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 appellant convicted for being in possession of the purview of Section appellant-Ranjit Singh appellant-Malkiat Singh has undergone a period of 03 months and 12 days of total sentence of any other case. Section 15 of NDPS Act, opinion that it would be in the interest of justice, if the sentence awarded to the appellants 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 Cour formality in criminal cases. When a minimum and maximum term is 2008 2 Learned Counsel for the appellant assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated Judge, Special Court, Muktsar on merits and restricts his prayer to modification of the order on quantum of sentence sentence already undergone by the appellants. As per the custody certificate have undergone a period of more than 03 involved in any other case. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the 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 35 kgs of Poppy Husk, of Section 15 NDPS Act. As per the custody certificate Ranjit Singh has undergone a period of Malkiat Singh has undergone a period of 03 months and 12 days of total sentence of 03 years each, in the instant case any other case. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under NDPS Act, for the non-commercial quantity opinion that it would be in the interest of justice, if the sentence awarded to the 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 appellants submits that he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 25.09.2008 passed by on merits and restricts his prayer to modification of the order on quantum of sentence dated 25.09.2008 to that of As per the custody certificates, more than 03 months and are not , learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the as the learned Court below has passed a well-reasoned judgment vidence 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 Poppy Husk, which falls under As per the custody certificates, has undergone a period of 03 months and 14 days and Malkiat Singh has undergone a period of 03 months and 12 days, out in the instant case and are not involved in Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under commercial quantity this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice, if the sentence awarded to the is reduced to the period already undergone by them. Deo Narain Mandal vs. State of U.P. (2004) 7 SCC 257, the t has opined that awarding of sentence is not a mere formality in criminal cases. When a minimum and maximum term is MANISHA 2025.05.07 09:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-1846-SB-2008 prescribed by the statute with regard to the period of sentence, a discretionary element is vested in the Court. Background of each case, w 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 c 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 base correct appreciation of evidence available on record. However, the FIR (supra) was lodged on agony of trial for grown into law-abiding citizen 2008 3 prescribed by the statute with regard to the period of sentence, a discretionary element is vested in the Court. Background of each case, w 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 g 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 egard 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 base correct appreciation of evidence available on record. However, the FIR ) was lodged on 18.12.2002 and the appellant agony of trial for last more than 22 years. Since abiding citizens and desire 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 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 g 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 egard 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 onduct 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 appellants have been suffering the years. Since their conviction, they have to live a peaceful life. MANISHA 2025.05.07 09:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-1846-SB-2008 9. Therefore, in view of the discussion above, disposed of in the following terms: (i) The judgment dated Special Court, (ii) The order of sentence date extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for and fine of Rs. the appellant undergone by May 02, 2025 manisha (i) (ii) 2008 4 Therefore, in view of the discussion above, disposed of in the following terms:- (i) The judgment dated 25.09.2008 Special Court, Muktsar is upheld. (ii) The order of sentence dated 25.09.2008 extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for and fine of Rs.25,000/- along with default mechanism awarded to the appellants is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by them. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable Therefore, in view of the discussion above, present appeal is 25.09.2008 passed by the learned Judge, d 25.09.2008 is modified to the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 03 years along with default mechanism awarded to 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