846 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA TARA SINGH STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON’BLE MR. Present: Ms as amicus curiae Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG, Punjab. HARPREET SINGH BRAR 1. The prayer in the present conviction and order of sentence dated Special Court, Hoshiarpur, 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 b Section 15 Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 3. Brief facts of the case are that on Singh along with other police officials was going Village Bham and reached near T IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH V/S PUNJAB HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Ms. Prabha Devi, Advocate amicus curiae for the appellant. 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 07.02.2008 Special Court, Hoshiarpur, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced the offence punishable under Section 15 Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter stemming from FIR No.80 dated 20.02.2005 under Section Act at Police Station Sadar, Hoshiarpur. The appellant was sentenced as mentioned b Offence 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Rigorous imprisonment for a period of one Rs.5,000/ of fine, to further undergo month. Brief facts of the case are that on 20.02.2005 along with other police officials was going Village Bham and reached near T-Point of Village Bham IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-S-488-SB-2008 Date of decision: 08.04.2025 ...APPELLANT ...RESPONDENT HARPREET SINGH BRAR appeal is to set aside the judgment of 07.02.2008 passed by learned Judge, whereby 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 year and to pay fine of 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for 01 20.02.2005, when ASI Darshan along with other police officials was going from Village Harta to Point of Village Bham, the appellant, MANISHA 2025.04.22 12:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-488-SB carrying a plastic bag Upon search of Subsequently, FIR 4. Learned all the five witnesses examined by the prosecution are police officials and their depositions are contradictory to each other. She further contends that although, the alleged recovery was made from a busy place, but the investigating officer has not associated any independent witness. Furthermore, PW Darshan Singh himself conducted the search, which is against the mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. She submits that PW Darshan Singh, in his cross information for special report to superior officer and the complainant himself is the investigating officer. undergone total custody period of of one year in the instant case and 5. Per contra appellant as the learned Court below has passed a well based on correct app not deserve any leniency. 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 under the purview has already undergone total sentence of punishment prescribed under Section SB-2008 2 plastic bag was seen coming. On suspic Upon search of plastic bag, 4.500 kgs of Subsequently, FIR (supra) was registered under Section Learned amicus curiae for the appellant all the five witnesses examined by the prosecution are police officials and their depositions are contradictory to each other. She further contends that although, the alleged recovery was made from a busy place, but the investigating officer iated any independent witness. Furthermore, PW Darshan Singh himself conducted the search, which is against the mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. She submits that PW Darshan Singh, in his cross-examination, has admit information for special report to superior officer and the complainant himself is the investigating officer. Lastly, she submits that the appellant has already gone total custody period of 04 months and in the instant case and he is not 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, not deserve any leniency. 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 4.500 kgs of purview of Section 15 NDPS Act. As per has already undergone an actual sentence of 04 total sentence of one year, in the instant case. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Section 15 NDPS Act, On suspicion, he was apprehended. kgs of Poppy Husk was recovered. was registered under Section 15 of the NDPS Act. for the appellant inter alia contends that all the five witnesses examined by the prosecution are police officials and their depositions are contradictory to each other. She further contends that although, the alleged recovery was made from a busy place, but the investigating officer iated any independent witness. Furthermore, PW-5, namely, ASI Darshan Singh himself conducted the search, which is against the mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. She submits that PW-5, ASI has admitted that he has not sent any information for special report to superior officer and the complainant himself submits that the appellant has already months and 03 days, out of total sentence is not involved in any other case. , learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the appellant as the learned Court below has passed a well-reasoned judgment reciation 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 Husk, which falls As per his custody certificate, he 04 months and 03 days out of in the instant case. Since there is no minimum NDPS Act, for the non-commercial MANISHA 2025.04.22 12:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-488-SB 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. 7. 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 element is vested in the Court. 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 w 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 C 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 only to the victim but also to the society a 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 accused. 9. A perusal of the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court indicates no perversity in its fin SB-2008 3 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 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 w 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 a 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 me 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 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 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 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. ourt 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 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 me 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 dings and the same is based on MANISHA 2025.04.22 12:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-488-SB 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. 10. Therefore, in view of the discussion above, disposed of in the following terms: (i) The judgment dated Special (ii) The order of sentence extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for and fine of Rs. the appellant is reduced to the per undergone by 11. The High Court Legal Services Authority is directed to remuneration to April 08, 2025 manisha (i) (ii) SB-2008 4 correct appreciation of evidence available on record. However, the FIR ) was lodged on 20.02.2005 and the appellant has been suffering the agony of trial for last more than 20 years. Since abiding citizen and desires to live a peaceful life. Therefore, in view of the discussion above, disposed of in the following terms:- (i) The judgment dated 07.02.2008 Special Court, Hoshiarpur is upheld. (ii) The order of sentence of dated extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for and fine of Rs.5,000/- along with default mechanism awarded to the appellant is reduced to the per undergone by him. The High Court Legal Services Authority is directed to the learned Amicus Curiae as per rules. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 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. Therefore, in view of the discussion above, the present appeal is 07.02.2008 passed by the learned Judge, is upheld. of dated 07.02.2008 is modified to the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year along with default mechanism awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period of sentence already The High Court Legal Services Authority is directed to pay as per rules. HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No MANISHA 2025.04.22 12:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment