477 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA HARDEEP SINGH STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON’BLE MR. Present: Mr. Mr. L.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG, Punjab. HARPREET SINGH BRAR 1. The conviction and order of sentence Special Court, Mansa the offence punishable under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter the case stemming from FIR No. 15 of NDPS Act at Police Station 2. The appellant Section 15 Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA Date of decision: 25.03. HARDEEP SINGH @ KALA V/S PUNJAB HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. Abhishek Singla, Advocate for Mr. L.S. Sidhu, 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 21.08.2006 Mansa whereby the appellant was the offence punishable under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter the case stemming from FIR No.75 dated 18.12. Act at Police Station Joga. The appellant was sentenced as mentioned below: Offence Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year Rs.5,000/ of fine, to further undergo months. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-S-642-SB-2007 (O & M) Date of decision: 25.03.2025 ...APPELANT ...RESPONDENT HARPREET SINGH BRAR for prayer in the present appeal is to set aside the judgment of dated 21.08.2006 passed by learned Judge, was convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and referred to as ‘NDPS Act’), in 18.12.2002 registered under Section sentenced as mentioned below: Sentence Rigorous imprisonment for a period one year and to pay fine of 00/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for two MANISHA 2025.03.27 18:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-642-SB 3. Brief facts of the case are that Singh of CIA Staff the revenue limit of Kharak Singh Wala, appellant was seen coming in an Ambassador car. apprehended on suspicion. Upon search of which, 35 kgs of Poppy Husk was recovered. registered under Section 15 of the NDPS Act 4. Learned Counsel for the the impugned judgment of conviction dated Judge, Special Court, of the order on quantum of sentence already undergone by the appellant appellant was suspended after custody, out of total sentence of one year and 15.09.2009 is already 5. Per contra appellant as the learned Court based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record does not deserve any leniency. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record with their able convicted for being in possession of the purview of Section 15 NDPS Act. As per by this Court, months and 26 days SB-2007 (O & M) 2 Brief facts of the case are that on Singh of CIA Staff along with other police officials was the revenue limit of Kharak Singh Wala, appellant was seen coming in an Ambassador car. On seeing the police, he tried to turn the car back apprehended on suspicion. Upon search of car, a bag was recovered, from of Poppy Husk was recovered. Subsequently, FIR registered under Section 15 of the NDPS Act. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 21.08.2006 Special Court, Mansa on merits and restricts his prayer to modification of the order on quantum of sentence dated 21.08.2006 already undergone by the appellant. Lastly, he submits that appellant was suspended after he has undergone out of total sentence of one year and 15.09.2009 is already taken on record. 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 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 35 kgs of of Section 15 NDPS Act. As per order dated the appellant has already undergone custod and 26 days, out of total sentence of on 18.12.2002, when SI Joginder along with other police officials was present at T-Point in the revenue limit of Kharak Singh Wala, appellant was seen coming in an tried to turn the car back, but was car, a bag was recovered, from Subsequently, FIR (supra) was submits that he is not assailing 21.08.2006 passed by learned on merits and restricts his prayer to modification 21.08.2006 to that of sentence Lastly, he submits that the sentence of the he has undergone near about 05 months of out of total sentence of one year and his custody certificate dated , learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the below has passed a well-reasoned judgment based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record and as such, he Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing assistance, it transpires that the appellant was poppy husk, which falls under order dated 22.09.2009 passed has already undergone custody period of 04 out of total sentence of one year, in the instant case. MANISHA 2025.03.27 18:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-642-SB Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Section 15 NDPS Act, for the non be in the interest of justice, if the sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by 7. In Deo Narain Mandal vs. State of U.P. (2004) 7 SCC 257 Hon'ble Supreme Court 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, whi 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 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 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 c balance between the efficacy of law and the chances of reformation of the accused. SB-2007 (O & M) 3 Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Section 15 NDPS for the non-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 discretionary element is vested in the Court. Background of each case, whi 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 g 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 egard 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 Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Section 15 NDPS this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice, if the sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced Deo Narain Mandal vs. State of U.P. (2004) 7 SCC 257, the 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 g 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 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 egard 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 onduct of the accused to strike a balance between the efficacy of law and the chances of reformation of the MANISHA 2025.03.27 18:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-642-SB 9. A perusal of the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court indicates no perversity in its findings and the same is base correct appreciation of evidence available on record. However, the FIR (supra) was lodged on agony of trial for into law-abiding citizen 10. Therefore, in view of the discussion above, disposed of in the following terms: (i) The judgment dated Special Court, (ii) The order of extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for and fine of Rs. the appellant is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by 11. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. March 25, 2025 manisha (i) (ii) SB-2007 (O & M) 4 A perusal of the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court indicates no perversity in its findings and the same is base correct appreciation of evidence available on record. However, the FIR ) was lodged on 18.12.2002 and the appellant agony of trial for last more than 22 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 21.08.2006 Special Court, Mansa is upheld. (ii) The order of sentence dated 21.08 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 period of sentence already undergone by him. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s) (HARPREET SINGH BRAR 5 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 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 to live a peaceful life. Therefore, in view of the discussion above, present appeal is 21.08.2006 passed by the learned Judge, 21.08.2006 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 Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s) HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No MANISHA 2025.03.27 18:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment