746 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA RULDU SINGH STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON’BLE MR. Present: Mr. for the petitioner. Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG, Punjab. HARPREET SINGH BRAR 1. The prayer in the present conviction and order of sentence dated Special Court, Bathinda, for the offence punishable under Section Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter stemming from FIR No. Act at Police Station 2. The appellant was sentenced as mentioned below: Section 15 Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RULDU SINGH V/S PUNJAB HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. Tajeshwar Singh Sullar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG, Punjab. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) The prayer in the present appeal is to set aside the and order of sentence dated 16.11.2007 Special Court, Bathinda, whereby, the appellant was convicted and sentenced the offence punishable under Section 15 Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter stemming from FIR No.32 dated 19.07.2006 under Section Act at Police Station Kotfatta. The appellant was sentenced as mentioned below: Offence 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Rigorous imprisonment for a period of four Rs.5,000/ of fine, to further undergo months. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-S-2457-SB-2007 Date of decision: 21.05.2025 ...APPELLANT ...RESPONDENT HARPREET SINGH BRAR Advocate (Amicus Curiae) appeal is to set aside the judgment of 16.11.2007 passed by learned Judge, the appellant was convicted and sentenced 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter ‘NDPS Act’), in the case under Section 15 of the NDPS The appellant was sentenced as mentioned below: Sentence Rigorous imprisonment for a period years and to pay fine of 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for 04 MANISHA 2025.05.26 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-2457-SB 3. Brief facts of the case are that on Singh along with other police officials Singh @ Kiki reached in the area of village Ramgarh Bhunder, with patrolling, the appellant shadow of Kikkar run away. On suspicion, kgs of Poppy Husk under Section 15 4. Learned the case property was not produced before the Station the safeguard provided under the NDPS Act has not been complied with. further contends that the learned trial Court has not considered the more reliable defence Jaswinder Singh was not produced during the course of trial, as such it convict the appellant only on the basis of testimon which are full of contradictions and discrepancies. appellant has already under days, out of total sentence of 5. Per co 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. case under the NDPS Act. SB-2007 2 Brief facts of the case are that on along with other police officials and independent witness Singh @ Kiki reached in the area of village Ramgarh Bhunder, , the appellant was spotted sitting with gunny bag beneath the Kikkar tree. On seeing the police, out of nervousness, he tried to On suspicion, he was apprehended. Upon search of Poppy Husk was recovered. Subsequently, FIR 15 of the NDPS Act. Learned amicus curiae for the appellant the case property was not produced before the Station the safeguard provided under the NDPS Act has not been complied with. further contends that the learned trial Court has not considered the more reliable defence evidence produced by the appellant. Furthermore, one Jaswinder Singh, who was joined as independent witness during investigation, was not produced during the course of trial, as such it convict the appellant only on the basis of testimon which are full of contradictions and discrepancies. appellant has already undergone total custody period of , out of total sentence of four years, in the instant 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, not deserve any leniency. Moreover, the appellant case under the NDPS Act. Brief facts of the case are that on 19.07.2006, when SI Harpal and independent witness-Jaswinder Singh @ Kiki reached in the area of village Ramgarh Bhunder, in connection was spotted sitting with gunny bag beneath the On seeing the police, out of nervousness, he tried to Upon search of gunny bag, 35 was recovered. Subsequently, FIR (supra) was registered for the appellant inter alia contends that the case property was not produced before the Station House Officer, as such, the safeguard provided under the NDPS Act has not been complied with. He further contends that the learned trial Court has not considered the more evidence produced by the appellant. Furthermore, one was joined as independent witness during investigation, was not produced during the course of trial, as such it would not be safe to convict the appellant only on the basis of testimonies of the official witnesses, which are full of contradictions and discrepancies. Lastly, he submits that the gone total custody period of 03 months and 02 in the instant case. , 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 Moreover, the appellant is involved in one more MANISHA 2025.05.26 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-2457-SB 6. 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 the purview of Section already undergone sentence of four years, punishment prescr commercial quantity of justice, if the sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by 7. In Deo Narain 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 discr 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 disc 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 len 8. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 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 onl SB-2007 3 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 35 kgs of Poppy Husk of Section 15 of NDPS Act. As per already undergone an actual sentence of 03 months and four years, in the instant case. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Section 15 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 reduced to the period 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 prescribed by the statute with regard to the period of sentence, a discr 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. 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 Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record with their able assistance, it transpires that the appellant was Poppy Husk, which falls under NDPS Act. As per his custody certificate, he has months and 02 days out of total in the instant case. Since there is no minimum 15 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 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 retion 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 ient. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme 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 y to the victim but also to the society at large. The MANISHA 2025.05.26 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-2457-SB 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 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. 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 cases pertaining to the NDPS Act in Punjab in CRA- Haryana in CRA Haryana in CRA Haryana in CRA and others vs. State of Punjab 28.03.2025. 10. A perusal of the judgment of convi 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. SB-2007 4 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 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 Further, the primary consideration in matters where the appellant(s) is/are involved in other NDPS cases ought to be the severity of the offence. Moreover, Co-ordinate benches of this Court have 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 and others vs. State of Punjab in CRA- A perusal of the judgment of convi 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 19.07.2006 and the appellant has been suffering the agony of trial for last more than 18 years. Since abiding citizen and desires to live a peaceful life. 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 Further, the primary consideration in matters where the 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 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 decided on 28.04.2023 and Gurmail Singh -S-1976-SB-2007 decided on 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 appellant has been suffering the years. Since his conviction, he has grown abiding citizen and desires to live a peaceful life. MANISHA 2025.05.26 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-2457-SB 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 fine is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by 11. The High Court Legal Services Authority is directed to remuneration to May 21, 2025 manisha (i) (ii) SB-2007 5 Therefore, in view of the discussion above, disposed of in the following terms:- (i) The judgment dated 16.11.2007 Special Court, Bathinda is upheld. (ii) The order of sentence of dated extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for and fine along with default mechanism awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by The High Court Legal Services Authority is directed to the learned Amicus Curiae as per rules (HARPREET SINGH BRAR Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable Therefore, in view of the discussion above, the present appeal is 16.11.2007 passed by the learned Judge, of dated 16.11.2007 is modified to the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for four years 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 pay as per rules. HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No MANISHA 2025.05.26 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment