1098 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA RANJIT SINGH ALIAS RANA STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON’BLE MR. Present: Ms Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG, Punjab. HARPREET SINGH BRAR 1. The prayer in the present appeal is to conviction and order of sentence dated 07.10.2008 Special Court, Jalandhar, for the offence punishable under Section Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter stemming from FIR No. Police Station Nakodar. 2. The appellant was sentenced as mentioned below: Section 21 Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 3. Brief facts of the case are that on Lal along with other police officials was Nanak National College, Nakodar IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RANJIT SINGH ALIAS RANA V/S PUNJAB HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Ms. Nishi, Advocate as amicus curiae Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG, Punjab. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) The prayer in the present appeal is to and order of sentence dated 07.10.2008 Special Court, Jalandhar, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced the offence punishable under Section 21 pic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter stemming from FIR No.95 dated 29.03.2003 under Section Police Station Nakodar. The appellant was sentenced as mentioned below: Offence 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months Rs.1,000 of fine, to further undergo month. Brief facts of the case are that on along with other police officials was coming from Nakodar towards Guru Nanak National College, Nakodar and was 100 yards short from canal minor IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-S-1942-SB-2008 Date of decision: 05.05.2025 ...APPELLANT ...RESPONDENT HARPREET SINGH BRAR amicus curiae for the appellant. The prayer in the present appeal is to set aside the judgment of and order of sentence dated 07.10.2008 passed by learned Judge, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and pic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter ‘NDPS Act’), in the case under Section 21 of NDPS Act at The appellant was sentenced as mentioned below: Sentence Rigorous imprisonment for a period six months and to pay fine of 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for 01 Brief facts of the case are that on 29.03.2003 when ASI Hussan coming from Nakodar towards Guru was 100 yards short from canal minor MANISHA 2025.05.08 18:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-1942-SB bridge, in connection with opposite side. On seeing the police, out of nervousness, he towards the bank of canal minor bridge Upon his search, recovered from the right pocket of his lower. registered under Section 4. Learned there is a total non admitted case of the prosecution that after the recovery of the alleged contraband, the same was produced before the MHC, whereas, as per the provisions contained under Section 55 of required to be produced before the SHO. Further, the entire case of the prosecution hinges upon the statements of official witnesses. Moreover, one independent witness was joined, however, he was not examined. She submits that there is non appellant was subjected to his personal search. appellant has already under days, out of total sentence of involved in any other case. 5. Per contra appellant as the learned Court below has passed a well based on correct appreciation of evidence available on not deserve any leniency. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record with their able assistance, it transpires that the appellant was SB-2008 2 in connection with patrolling, the appellant On seeing the police, out of nervousness, he towards the bank of canal minor bridge. On suspicion, search, 100 grams of Smack wrapped in a glazed paper from the right pocket of his lower. Subsequently, FIR registered under Section 21 of the NDPS Act. Learned amicus curiae for the appellant there is a total non-compliance of Section 55 of the NDPS Act and it is admitted case of the prosecution that after the recovery of the alleged contraband, the same was produced before the MHC, whereas, as per the provisions contained under Section 55 of NDPS Act, the case property was required to be produced before the SHO. Further, the entire case of the prosecution hinges upon the statements of official witnesses. Moreover, one independent witness was joined, however, he was not examined. She submits at there is non-compliance of Section 50 of NDPS Act appellant was subjected to his personal search. appellant has already undergone total custody period of , out of total sentence of six months, in the instant case 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 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 , the appellant was seen coming from the On seeing the police, out of nervousness, he started moving On suspicion, he was apprehended. wrapped in a glazed paper was Subsequently, FIR (supra) was for the appellant inter alia contends that compliance of Section 55 of the NDPS Act and it is admitted case of the prosecution that after the recovery of the alleged contraband, the same was produced before the MHC, whereas, as per the NDPS Act, the case property was required to be produced before the SHO. Further, the entire case of the prosecution hinges upon the statements of official witnesses. Moreover, one independent witness was joined, however, he was not examined. She submits of NDPS Act as per which, the appellant was subjected to his personal search. Lastly, she submits that the gone total custody period of 02 months and 06 in the instant case 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 MANISHA 2025.05.08 18:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-1942-SB convicted for being in possession of the purview of Section already undergone sentence of six months punishment prescribed under Section commercial quantity of justice, if the sentence awarded to the appellant is reduc already undergone by 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 of each case, which includes factors like gravity of the offence, manner in which the offence is committed, age of the accused, should be con 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 sente 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 de 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 a SB-2008 3 convicted for being in possession of 100 grams of Smack, of Section 21 of NDPS Act. As per already undergone an actual sentence of 02 months and six months, in the instant case. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Section 21 of 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 reduc 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 d 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 sente 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 a 100 grams of Smack, which falls under NDPS Act. As per his custody certificate, he has months and 06 days out of total , in the instant case. Since there is no minimum 21 of NDPS Act, for the non- 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 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 d 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, sidered 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 terrent 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 MANISHA 2025.05.08 18:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-1942-SB 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. 9. A pe 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 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, Jalandhar (ii) The order of sentence extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment fo and fine of Rs. the appellant is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by 11. The High Court Legal Services Authority is directed to remuneration to May 05, 2025 manisha (i) (ii) SB-2008 4 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 on correct appreciation of evidence available on record. However, the FIR ) was lodged on 29.03.2003 and the appellant has been suffering the 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:- (i) The judgment dated 07.10.2008 Special Court, Jalandhar is upheld. (ii) The order of sentence of dated extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment fo and fine of Rs.1,000/- along with default mechanism awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by him. The High Court Legal Services Authority is directed to the learned Amicus Curiae as per rules. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 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 rusal 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 07.10.2008 passed by the learned Judge, of dated 07.10.2008 is modified to the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months along with default mechanism awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period of sentence already The High Court Legal Services Authority is directed to pay as per rules. HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No MANISHA 2025.05.08 18:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment