679 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA WARIAM SINGH STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON’BLE MR. Present: Mr. for the Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG, Punjab. HARPREET SINGH BRAR 1. The prayer in the present appeal is to conviction dated 17.09.2007 and order of sentence dated 19.09.2007 learned Special Judge, Moga, sentenced for the offence punishable under Section Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter ‘NDPS Act’), in the case stemming from FIR No. registered under Section 2. The appellant of Poppy Husk as mentioned below: Section 15(b) Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH WARIAM SINGH V/S PUNJAB HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. N.S. Dandiwal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG, Punjab. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) The prayer in the present appeal is to conviction dated 17.09.2007 and order of sentence dated 19.09.2007 Special Judge, Moga, whereby the appellant the offence punishable under Section Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter in the case stemming from FIR No. under Section 15 of NDPS Act at Police Station Mehna. The appellant was sentenced for keeping in his possession 30 kgs as mentioned below: Offence 15(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Rigorous imprisonment for a period of 03 years Rs.5,000 of fine, to further undergo months. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-S-1961-SB-2007 Date of decision: 28.03.2025 ...APPELLANT ...RESPONDENT HARPREET SINGH BRAR The prayer in the present appeal is to set aside the judgment of conviction dated 17.09.2007 and order of sentence dated 19.09.2007 passed by whereby the appellant was convicted and the offence punishable under Section 15(b) of the Narcotic Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as in the case stemming from FIR No.120 dated 17.12.2003 Act at Police Station Mehna. for keeping in his possession 30 kgs Sentence Rigorous imprisonment for a period 03 years and to pay fine of 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for 03 MANISHA 2025.04.02 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-1961-SB 3. Learned Counsel for the the impugned judgment of conviction dated Special Judge, Moga order on quantum of sentence undergone by the appellant undergone actual period of 06 months and 21 days and 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 lenien 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 has undergone a period of 06 months and 21 days sentence of three years no minimum punishment prescribed un non-commercial quantity interest of justice, if the sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by 6. In Deo Narain Mandal vs. 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 SB-2007 2 Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 17.09.2007 Special Judge, Moga on merits and restricts his order on quantum of sentence dated 19.09.2007 undergone by the appellant. As per the custody certificate, the appellant has undergone actual period of 06 months and 21 days and 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 Poppy Husk, of Section 15 NDPS Act. As per the custody certificate, the appellant has undergone a period of 06 months and 21 days three years and he is not involved in any other case no minimum punishment prescribed under Section 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 submits that he is not assailing 17.09.2007 passed by learned on merits and restricts his prayer to modification of the 19.09.2007 to that of sentence already As per the custody certificate, the appellant has undergone actual period of 06 months and 21 days and he is not involved in , 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 Poppy Husk, which falls under As per the custody certificate, the appellant has undergone a period of 06 months and 21 days out of total not involved in any other case. Since there is der Section 15 of NDPS Act, for the 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 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 MANISHA 2025.04.02 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-1961-SB 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 i 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 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 c 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. 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 on 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-2007 3 lement 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 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 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 c 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 ndicates no perversity in its findings and the same is based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record. However, the FIR ) was lodged on 17.12.2003 and the appellant agony of trial for last more than 21 years. Since abiding citizen and desires to live a peaceful life. Therefore, in view of the discussion above, disposed of in the following terms:- lement 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 s 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 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 A perusal of the judgment of conviction passed by the learned ndicates 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 ce his conviction, he has grown to live a peaceful life. Therefore, in view of the discussion above, present appeal is MANISHA 2025.04.02 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-1961-SB (i) The judgment dated Judge, Moga (ii) The order of sentence extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for and fine of Rs. the appellant is reduced to the peri undergone by March 28, 2025 manisha (i) (ii) SB-2007 4 (i) The judgment dated 17.09.2007 Judge, Moga is upheld. (ii) The order of sentence dated 19.09.2007 extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for and fine of Rs.5,000/- along with default mechanism awarded to the appellant is reduced to the peri undergone by him. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR 5 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 17.09.2007 passed by the learned Special d 19.09.2007 is modified to the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 03 years 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 2025.04.02 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment