1155-2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-S-2371-SB-2008 Date of decision: 06.05.2025 Bajrang Dass ....Appellant Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. N.S.Dandiwal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG, Punjab. HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) 1. The prayer in the present appeal is to set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.11.2008 passed by learned Special Judge, Moga, whereby, the appellant was convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 18(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter ‘NDPS Act’), in the case stemming from FIR No.61 dated 10.04.2004, under Section 18 of the NDPS Act at Police Station City-I, Moga. 2. The appellant was convicted for keeping in possession 400 grams of opium and sentenced as mentioned below: Offence Sentence Section 18 (c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Rigorous imprisonment for a period of 11/2 years and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant inter alia contends that the judgment passed by the learned trial Court is based upon surmises and conjectures. There is non-compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act and the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. There are many Neha 2025.05.20 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-2371-SB-2008 -2- discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and the learned Special Judge has not considered the same in a prospective manner and the defence version has not been properly appreciated. Further, he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction on merits and restricts his prayer to modification of the order on quantum of sentence, to that of the sentence already undergone by the appellant as he has already undergone period of 01 year, 05 months and 29 days in custody. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the appellants as the learned Court below has passed a well-reasoned judgment based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record. He further submits that the appellant is involved in one more case under the NDPS Act and as such, he does 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 was convicted for being in possession of 400 grams of opium, i.e. intermediate quantity, attracting the offence of Section 18(c) of NDPS Act, for which no minimum punishment has been prescribed. As per his custody certificate, the appellant has already undergone period of 01 year, 05 months and 29 days out of total sentence of 11/2 years, in the instant case. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Section 18 NDPS Act, 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. 6. Further, the primary consideration in matters where the petitioner/appellant is involved in other NDPS cases ought to be the severity of the offence. Moreover, Co-ordinate benches of this Court have deemed it appropriate Neha 2025.05.20 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-2371-SB-2008 -3- to reduce the sentence imposed upon the accused to be 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 Punjab in CRA-S-1769-SB-2010 decided on 03.04.2025, Ram Lal vs. State of Haryana in CRA-S-986-SB-2005 decided on 11.05.2018, Raj Pal vs. State of Haryana in CRA-S-68-SB-2005 decided on 28.04.2023, Raj Pal vs. State of Haryana in CRA-S-34-SB-2005 decided on 28.04.2023 and Gurmail Singh and others vs. State of Punjab in CRA-S-1976-SB-2007 decided on 28.03.2025. 7. In 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 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 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. 8. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravada Sasikala vs. State 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 Neha 2025.05.20 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-2371-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 accused. 9. 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 10.04.2004 and the appellant has been suffering the agony of trial for last about 21 years. Since his conviction, he has grown into a law-abiding citizen and desires to live a peaceful life. 10. Therefore, in view of the discussion above, the present appeal is disposed of in the following terms:- (i) The judgment dated 17.11.2008 passed by the learned Special Judge, Moga, is upheld. (ii) The order of sentence dated 17.11.2008 is modified to the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 11/2 years and fine along with default mechanism awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by him. 11. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 06.05.2025 Neha Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Neha 2025.05.20 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document