852 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA NAINDER SINGH STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON’BLE MR. Present: Dr. Prem Nath, Mr. Liaqat Ali, Advocate Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG, Punjab. HARPREET SINGH BRAR 1. The prayer in conviction and order of sentence dated 04.02.2008 Special Court, Jalandhar for the offence punishable under Section Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter the case stemming from FIR No. 15/61/85 of NDPS 2. The appellant of Poppy Husk, Section 15 Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH NAINDER SINGH V/S PUNJAB HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Dr. Prem Nath, Advocate for Mr. Liaqat Ali, Advocate for the appellant Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG, Punjab. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) The prayer in the present appeal is to set aside the conviction and order of sentence dated 04.02.2008 , Jalandhar whereby the appellant the offence punishable under Sections 15 Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter the case stemming from FIR No.3 dated 01.01.2004 registered of NDPS Act at Police Station Nakodar. The appellant was sentenced for keeping in his possession , as mentioned below: Offence 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years Rs.1,000 of fine, to further undergo month. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-S-508-SB-2008 Date of decision: 08.04.2025 ...APPELLANT ...RESPONDENT HARPREET SINGH BRAR appellant. the present appeal is to set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.02.2008 passed by learned Judge, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced s 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and referred to as ‘NDPS Act’), in 3 dated 01.01.2004 registered under Sections Act at Police Station Nakodar. for keeping in his possession 12 kgs Sentence Rigorous imprisonment for a period two years and to pay fine of 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for one MANISHA 2025.04.09 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-508-SB 3. Learned Counsel for the the impugned judgment of conviction dated Judge, Special Court, Jalandhar modification of the order on quantum of sentence sentence already undergone by the appellant the appellant has undergone a period of 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. He further submit other cases also. 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 the purview of Section appellant has undergone a period of sentence of two years punishment pres 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 6. 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 SB-2008 2 Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 04.02.2008 Judge, Special Court, Jalandhar on merits and restricts his prayer to modification of the order on quantum of sentence sentence already undergone by the appellant. As per the custody certificate, the appellant has undergone a period of 02 months and 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, any leniency. He further submits that the appellant is involved in other cases also. 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 12 kgs of Poppy of Section 15 NDPS Act. As per the custody certificate, the appellant has undergone a period of 02 months and two years, in the instant case. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Section 15 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 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 submits that he is not assailing 04.02.2008 passed by learned merits and restricts his prayer to modification of the order on quantum of sentence dated 04.02.2008 to that of As per the custody certificate, months and 14 days. , 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 s that the appellant is involved in 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 As per the custody certificate, the months and 14 days out of total , in the instant case. Since there is no minimum NDPS Act, for the non-commercial 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 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 MANISHA 2025.04.09 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-508-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 considered while determining the quantum of sentence and this di 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 l 7. 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 o 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 natur 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 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 agony of trial for into law-abiding citizen 9. Therefore, in view of the discussion above, disposed of in the following terms: 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 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 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 natur 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 al 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 01.01.2004 and the appellant agony of trial for last more than 21 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, age of the accused, should be considered while determining the quantum of scretion 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 enient. 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 nly 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 A perusal of the judgment of conviction passed by the learned al 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 2025.04.09 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-508-SB (i) The judgment dated Special Court, Jalandhar (ii) The order of sentence extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for and fine of Rs. the appellant is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by April 08, 2025 manisha (i) (ii) SB-2008 4 (i) The judgment dated 04.02.2008 Special Court, Jalandhar is upheld. (ii) The order of sentence dated 04.02.2008 extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 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. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 04.02.2008 passed by the learned Judge, d 04.02.2008 is modified to the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years along with default mechanism awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period of sentence already HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No MANISHA 2025.04.09 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment