727 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 1. CHHINDER SINGH STATE OF PUNJAB 2. RAJU STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON’BLE MR. Present: Mr. Sanjeev Manrai, Mr. Rohit Bhardwaj, Advocate Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG, Punjab. HARPREET SINGH BRAR 1. This order of mine shall dispose of both the above appeals as both are arising from the same FIR. are borrowed from of Punjab. 2. The prayer in the present appeal is to set aside the conviction and order of sentence dated Special Court, Bathinda, for the offence punishable under Section Psychotropic Substanc IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 21.05. CRA CHHINDER SINGH V/S PUNJAB CRA V/S PUNJAB HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SING Mr. Sanjeev Manrai, Senior Advocate Mr. Rohit Bhardwaj, Advocate for the Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG, Punjab. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) This order of mine shall dispose of both the above as both are arising from the same FIR. are borrowed from CRA-S-2311-SB-2007 titled The prayer in the present appeal is to set aside the conviction and order of sentence dated 11.10.2007 Special Court, Bathinda, whereby the appellants were the offence punishable under Section 15 Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 21.05.2025 CRA-S-2311-SB-2007 ...APPELLANT ...RESPONDENT CRA-S-1491-SB-2008 ...APPELLANT ...RESPONDENT HARPREET SINGH BRAR Advocate with for the appellant(s). This order of mine shall dispose of both the above-mentioned as both are arising from the same FIR. For the sake of brevity, facts titled as Chhinder Singh vs. State The prayer in the present appeal is to set aside the judgment of 11.10.2007 passed by learned Judge, s were convicted and sentenced 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and referred to as ‘NDPS Act’), in MANISHA 2025.05.23 18:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-2311-SB & 01 connected case the case stemming from FIR No. 15 of NDPS Act at Police Station 3. The appellant kgs and 30 kgs of Name of the appellant(s) Chhinder Singh Raju 3. Learned Counsel for the assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated learned Judge, Special Court, Bathinda modification of the order on quantum of sentence sentence already undergone by the appellant the appellant-Chhinder Singh has undergone a period of 01 year, 02 and 06 days and appellant and 06 days. 4. Per contra appellants as the learned Court below has passed a well based on correct appr SB-2007 2 & 01 connected case the case stemming from FIR No.86 dated 22.06.2003 Act at Police Station Talwandi Sabo. The appellants were sentenced for keeping in of poppy husk, as mentioned below: Name of the appellant(s) Offence inder Singh Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Rigorous imprisonment for a period of fine of Rs. of payment of fine, to further undergo Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Rigorous imprisonment for a period of pay fine of Rs. default of payment of fine, to further undergo months. Learned Counsel for the appellant assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated Judge, Special Court, Bathinda on me modification of the order on quantum of sentence sentence already undergone by the appellants. As per the custody certificate Chhinder Singh has undergone a period of 01 year, 02 and 06 days and appellant-Raju has undergone a period of 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, 22.06.2003 registered under Section Talwandi Sabo. for keeping in their possession 35 as mentioned below: Sentence Rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for 02 months. Rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for 02 months. appellants submits that he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 11.10.2007 passed by on merits and restricts his prayer to modification of the order on quantum of sentence dated 11.10.2007 to that of As per the custody certificates, Chhinder Singh has undergone a period of 01 year, 02 months undergone a period of 01 year, 10 months , learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the as the learned Court below has passed a well-reasoned judgment eciation of evidence available on record as such, they do MANISHA 2025.05.23 18:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-2311-SB & 01 connected case not deserve any leniency. also. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record with their able assistance, it convicted for being in possession of fall under the certificates, the appellant 02 months and 06 days and appellant 10 months and 06 days under Section 15 of of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice, if the sentence awarded to the appellant 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 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 SB-2007 3 & 01 connected case deserve any leniency. Moreover, the appellants are involved in other cases 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 and 30 kgs under the purview of Section 15 of NDPS Act. certificates, the appellant-Chhinder Singh has undergone a period of 01 year, hs and 06 days and appellant-Raju has undergone a period of 01 year, 10 months and 06 days. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed 15 of NDPS Act, for the non-commercial quantity of the 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 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, 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 Moreover, the appellants are involved in other cases Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing transpires that the appellants were and 30 kgs of Poppy Husk, which NDPS Act. As per the custody Chhinder Singh has undergone a period of 01 year, Raju has undergone a period of 01 year, Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed commercial quantity this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice, if the sentence 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 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 MANISHA 2025.05.23 18:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-2311-SB & 01 connected case 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 9. Further, the primary consideration in matters where the petitioner/appellant(s) is/are involved in other NDPS cases ought to be the severity of the offence. Moreover, Co deemed it appropriate to reduce the sentence imposed upon the accused the custody already undergone by them, in spite of their involvement in other cases pertaining to the NDPS Act in Punjab in CRA- Haryana in CRA Haryana in CRA Haryana in CRA SB-2007 4 & 01 connected case 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 22.06.2003 and the appellant agony of trial for last more than 21 years. Since abiding citizens and desire to live a peaceful life. Further, the primary consideration in matters where the petitioner/appellant(s) is/are involved in other NDPS cases ought to be the severity of the offence. Moreover, Co-ordinate be deemed it appropriate to reduce the sentence imposed upon the accused the custody already undergone by them, in spite of their involvement in other cases pertaining to the NDPS Act in Pritam Singh @ Preeti vs. State of -S-1769-SB-2010 decided on 03.04.2025, CRA-S-986-SB-2005 decided on 11.05.2018 CRA-S-68-SB-2005 decided on 28.04.2023, CRA-S-34-SB-2005 decided on 28.04.2023 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. Further, the primary consideration in matters where the petitioner/appellant(s) is/are involved in other NDPS cases ought to be the ordinate benches of this Court have deemed it appropriate to reduce the sentence imposed upon the accused to be the custody already undergone by them, in spite of their involvement in other Pritam Singh @ Preeti vs. State of decided on 03.04.2025, Ram Lal vs. State of decided on 11.05.2018, Raj Pal vs. State of decided on 28.04.2023, Raj Pal vs. State of 28.04.2023 and Gurmail Singh MANISHA 2025.05.23 18:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-2311-SB & 01 connected case and others vs. State of Punjab 28.03.2025. 10. Therefore, in view of the discussion above, disposed of in the following terms: (i) The judgment dated Special Court, Bathinda (ii) The order of sentence extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for and three years to the appellant already undergone by 11. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other connected case. May 21, 2025 manisha (i) (ii) SB-2007 5 & 01 connected case and others vs. State of Punjab in CRA- Therefore, in view of the discussion above, disposed of in the following terms:- (i) The judgment dated 11.10.2007 Special Court, Bathinda is upheld. (ii) The order of sentence dated 11.10.2007 extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for and three years and fine along with default mechanism awarded o the appellants respectively is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by them. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other connected (HARPREET SINGH BRAR Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable -S-1976-SB-2007 decided on Therefore, in view of the discussion above, both the appeals are 11.10.2007 passed by the learned Judge, 11.10.2007 is modified to the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for four years along with default mechanism awarded is reduced to the period of sentence A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other connected HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No MANISHA 2025.05.23 18:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment