1108 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA KULDIP SINGH STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON’BLE MR. Present: Mr. Mr. Manvinder Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG, Punjab. HARPREET SINGH BRAR 1. The prayer in the present appeal is to set aside the conviction and order of sentence dated Special Court, Muktsar, for the offence punishable under Sect Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter the case stemming from FIR No. Section 18 of NDPS 2. The appellant grams of Opium Section 18 Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH KULDIP SINGH V/S PUNJAB HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR . Manish Singh, Advocate for Mr. Manvinder Singh 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 conviction and order of sentence dated 13.10.2008 Special Court, Muktsar, whereby, the appellant the offence punishable under Section 18 Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter the case stemming from FIR No.131 dated of NDPS Act at Police Station Gidderbaha. The appellant was sentenced for keeping in his possession grams of Opium, as mentioned below: Offence 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years Rs.25,000 payment of fine, to further undergo IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-S-2014-SB-2008 Date of decision: 05.05.2025 ...APPELLANT ...RESPONDENT HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. Manvinder Singh Sidhu, Advocate The prayer in the present appeal is to set aside the judgment of 13.10.2008 passed by learned Judge, the appellant was convicted and sentenced 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and referred to as ‘NDPS Act’), in dated 04.10.2004 registered under Gidderbaha. for keeping in his possession 250 Sentence Rigorous imprisonment for a period two years and to pay fine of 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo MANISHA 2025.05.07 09:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-2014-SB 3. Learned Counsel for the the impugned judgment of conviction dated Judge, Special Court, 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 co 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 sentence of two years, 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 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 SB-2008 2 imprisonment for 03 months. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 13.10.2008 Judge, Special Court, Muktsar 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 02 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 appellant convicted for being in possession of 250 grams of Section 18 of NDPS Act. As per the custody certif appellant has undergone a period of 02 months and two years, 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 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 imprisonment for 03 months. submits that he is not assailing 13.10.2008 passed by learned on merits and restricts his prayer to modification of the order on quantum of sentence dated 13.10.2008 to that of As per the custody certificate, months and 16 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 unsel 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 As per the custody certificate, the months and 16 days, out of total he is not involved in any other Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Section 18 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 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 MANISHA 2025.05.07 09:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-2014-SB prescribed by the statute with regard to the period of sentence, a discretionary element is vested in the Cou 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 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 Supr 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 soci 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 accused. 8. A perusal of the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court indicates no perversity in it correct appreciation of evidence available on record. However, the FIR (supra) was lodged on agony of trial for into law-abiding citizen SB-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, 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 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 soci 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 e 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 on correct appreciation of evidence available on record. However, the FIR ) was lodged on 04.10.2004 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 rt. 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. eme 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 e 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 s 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 2025.05.07 09:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-2014-SB 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 extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for and fine of Rs. the appellant is reduced to the period of sent undergone by May 05, 2025 manisha (i) (ii) SB-2008 4 Therefore, in view of the discussion above, disposed of in the following terms:- (i) The judgment dated 13.10.2008 Special Court, Muktsar is upheld. (ii) The order of sentence dated 13.10.2008 extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for and fine of Rs.25,000/- along with default mechanism awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period of sent undergone by him. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable Therefore, in view of the discussion above, present appeal is 13.10.2008 passed by the learned Judge, 13.10.2008 is modified to the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two 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 2025.05.07 09:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment