807 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA VIKKAR SINGH STATE OF HARYANA CORAM: HON’BLE MR. Present: Mr. Mr. Harkesh Kumar, AAG, Haryana. HARPREET SINGH BRAR 1. The prayer in the present appeal is to set conviction dated 01.12.2007 and order of sentence dated 03.12.2007 learned Judge, Special Court, Panipat, and sentenced for Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter ‘NDPS Act’), in the case stemming from FIR No. registered under Section 2. The appellant kgs of poppy straw Section 15 Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH VIKKAR SINGH V/S HARYANA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. Ashok Giri, Advocate for the appellant Mr. Harkesh Kumar, AAG, Haryana. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) The prayer in the present appeal is to set conviction dated 01.12.2007 and order of sentence dated 03.12.2007 Judge, Special Court, Panipat, whereby the appellant for the offence punishable under Section d Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter in the case stemming from FIR No. under Section 15 of NDPS Act at Police Station City, Panipat. The appellant was sentenced for keeping in his possession straw, as mentioned below: Offence 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Rigorous imprisonment for a period of two and half years fine of Rs. payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-S-241-SB-2008 Date of decision: 03.04.2025 ...APPELLANT ...RESPONDENT HARPREET SINGH BRAR appellant. Mr. Harkesh Kumar, AAG, Haryana. The prayer in the present appeal is to set aside the judgment of conviction dated 01.12.2007 and order of sentence dated 03.12.2007 passed by whereby the appellant was convicted the offence punishable under Section 15 of the Narcotic d Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as in the case stemming from FIR No.435 dated 22.07.2007 Act at Police Station City, Panipat. for keeping in his possession 13.200 Sentence Rigorous imprisonment for a period two and half years and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for 06 months. MANISHA 2025.04.04 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-241-SB 3. Learned Counsel for the the impugned judgment of conviction dated Judge, Special Court, Panipat of the order on quantum of sentence already undergone by the appellant appellant has undergone a 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 counsel for the parties and after perusing the record with their able assistance, it transpires that the appellant convicted for being in possession of under the purview appellant has undergone a period of involved in any other case, instant case. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Section 15 NDPS Act, that it would be in the interest of justice, if the sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced t 6. 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 SB-2008 2 Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 01.12.2007 Judge, Special Court, Panipat on merits and restricts his prayer to modification of the order on quantum of sentence dated 03.12.2007 already undergone by the appellant. As per appellant has undergone actual period of 06 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 13.200 kg purview of Section 15 NDPS Act. As per the custody certificate, the appellant has undergone a period of 06 months and involved in any other case, out of total sentence of instant case. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Section for the non-commercial quantity that it would be in the interest of justice, if the sentence awarded to the appellant 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 the statute with regard to the period of sentence, a discretionary submits that he is not assailing 01.12.2007 passed by learned on merits and restricts his prayer to modification 03.12.2007 to that of sentence As per his custody certificate, the months and 08 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 Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record with their able assistance, it transpires that the appellant was kgs of Poppy Straw, which falls As per the custody certificate, the months and 08 days and he is not out of total sentence of two and half years, in the instant case. Since there is 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 o the period already undergone by him. 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 the statute with regard to the period of sentence, a discretionary MANISHA 2025.04.04 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-241-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 consi 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 sentenc 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 dete 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 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 peru 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 SB-2008 3 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 sentenc 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 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 22.07.2007 and the appellant agony of trial for last more than 17 years. Since abiding citizen and desires to live a peaceful life. Therefore, in view of the discussion above, disposed of in the following terms:- 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, dered 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 rrent 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 conduct of the accused to strike a balance between the efficacy of law and the chances of reformation of the sal 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 to live a peaceful life. Therefore, in view of the discussion above, present appeal is MANISHA 2025.04.04 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-241-SB (i) The judgment dated Special Court, Panipat (ii) The order of sentence extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for half years awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by April 03, 2025 manisha (i) (ii) SB-2008 4 (i) The judgment dated 01.12.2007 Special Court, Panipat is upheld. (ii) The order of sentence of dated extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for half years and fine of Rs.25,000/- awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by him. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 01.12.2007 passed by the learned Judge, d 03.12.2007 is modified to the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two and along with default mechanism awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period of sentence HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No MANISHA 2025.04.04 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment