1352 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 1. JOGINDER SINGH STATE OF PUNJAB 2. KASHMIR SINGH STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON’BLE MR. Present: Ms. Rupakshi Soni, Advocate for Mr. for the Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG, Punjab. HARPREET SINGH BRAR 1. This order of mine shall dispose of both the above appeals as both are arising out of the same FIR. For the sake of brevity, facts are borrowed from of Punjab. 2. The prayer in the present conviction and order of sentence dated Judge, Ferozepur, the offence punishable under Section IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH JOGINDER SINGH V/S PUNJAB KASHMIR SINGH V/S PUNJAB HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR s. Rupakshi Soni, Advocate for Mr. Saurabh Chugh, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG, Punjab. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) This order of mine shall dispose of both the above appeals as both are arising out of the same FIR. For the sake of brevity, facts are borrowed from CRA-S-1069-SB-2010 titled as The prayer in the present appeals is to set aside the conviction and order of sentence dated 12.04.2010 Judge, Ferozepur, whereby, the appellants were the offence punishable under Section 15 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 15.05.2025 CRA-S-1069-SB-2010 ...APPELLANT ...RESPONDENT CRA-S-1244-SB-2010 ...APPELLANT ...RESPONDENT HARPREET SINGH BRAR This order of mine shall dispose of both the above-mentioned appeals as both are arising out of the same FIR. For the sake of brevity, facts titled as ‘Joginder Singh vs. State is to set aside the judgment of .2010 passed by learned Special s were convicted and sentenced for of the Narcotic Drugs and MANISHA 2025.05.17 12:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-1069-SB & one connected case Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter the case stemming from FIR No. Section 15 of NDPS 3. The appellant kgs of Poppy Husk Section 15 Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 4. Learned Counsel assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated learned Special Judge, Ferozepur modification of the order on quantum of sentence sentence already undergone by the appellant the appellant-Joginder Singh months, 12 days 06 months, 21 days. 5. Per contra appellants as the learned Court below has passed a well based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record as such, not deserve any leniency. other cases and appellant 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record with their able assistance, it transpires that the appellant SB-2010 2 & one connected case Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter the case stemming from FIR No.358 dated of NDPS Act at Police Station Sadar, Fazilka. The appellants were sentenced for keeping in their possession 35 Poppy Husk each, as mentioned below: Offence 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years Rs.5,000 payment of fine, to further undergo RI for 06 months. Learned Counsel(s) for the appellants assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated Special Judge, Ferozepur on merits and restricts modification of the order on quantum of sentence sentence already undergone by the appellants. As per the custody certificates, Joginder Singh has undergone months, 12 days and appellant-Kashmir Singh , 21 days. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the as the learned Court below has passed a well based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record as such, deserve any leniency. Moreover, appellant- and appellant-Kashmir Singh is also involved in one more case. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record with their able assistance, it transpires that the appellant referred to as ‘NDPS Act’), in dated 12.11.2005 registered under Act at Police Station Sadar, Fazilka. for keeping in their possession 35 Sentence Rigorous imprisonment for a period three years and to pay fine of ,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 06 months. appellants submits that they are not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 12.04.2010 passed by on merits and restricts their prayer to modification of the order on quantum of sentence dated 12.04.2010 to that of As per the custody certificates, has undergone total period of 01 year, 04 has undergone total period of , learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the as the learned Court below has passed a well-reasoned judgment based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record as such, they do -Joginder Singh is involved in gh is also involved in one more case. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record with their able assistance, it transpires that the appellants were MANISHA 2025.05.17 12:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-1069-SB & one connected case convicted for being in possession of under the purview the appellant-Joginder Singh has undergone total period of 01 year, 04 months, 12 days and appellant 06 months, 21 days. Section 15 of NDPS Act, opinion that it would be in the interest of justice, if the sentence awarded to the appellants is reduced to the period alrea 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 element is vested in the Court. Background of each case, which includes factors like gravity of the offence, manner in which age of the accused, should be considered while determ 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 th 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 SB-2010 3 & one connected case convicted for being in possession of 35 kgs of purview of Section 15 of NDPS Act. As per the custody certificates, Joginder Singh has undergone total period of 01 year, 04 months, 12 days and appellant-Kashmir Singh has undergone total period of 06 months, 21 days. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under NDPS Act, for the non-commercial quantity opinion that it would be in the interest of justice, if the sentence awarded to the 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 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 age of the accused, should be considered while determ 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 sively 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 th 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 Poppy Husk each, which falls As per the custody certificates, Joginder Singh has undergone total period of 01 year, 04 Kashmir Singh has undergone total period of Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under commercial quantity this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice, if the sentence awarded to the dy undergone by them. 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 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 assessing all relevant factors, proper sentence should be awarded bearing in mind the principle of proportionality to ensure the sentence is neither sively 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 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 MANISHA 2025.05.17 12:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-1069-SB & one connected case 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 judgmen 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 grown into law-abiding citizen 10. Further, the primary consideration in matters where the petitioner/appellant severity of the offence. Moreover, Co deemed it appropriate to reduce the sentence imposed upon the accused the custody already undergone by them, in spite of their inv 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. 11. Therefore, in view of the discussion above, disposed of in the following terms: SB-2010 4 & one connected case tances 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 12.11.2005 and the appellant agony of trial for last more than 19 years. Since abiding citizens and desire to live a peaceful life. 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-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 inv 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- Therefore, in view of the discussion above, disposed of in the following terms:- tances 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 t 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 appellants have been suffering the years. Since their conviction, they have to live a peaceful life. Further, the primary consideration in matters where the 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 the custody already undergone by them, in 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 Therefore, in view of the discussion above, both the appeals are MANISHA 2025.05.17 12:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-1069-SB & one connected case (i) The judgment dated Judge, Ferozepur (ii) The order of sentence extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for each and fine appellant by them. 12. A photocopy of this order be case. May 15, 2025 manisha (i) (ii) SB-2010 5 & one connected case (i) The judgment dated 12.04.2010 Judge, Ferozepur is upheld. (ii) The order of sentence dated 12.04.2010 extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for each and fine along with default mechanism awarded to the appellants is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone them. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other connected (HARPREET SINGH BRAR Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 12.04.2010 passed by the learned Special 12.04.2010 is modified to the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years along with default mechanism awarded to the is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone placed on the file of other connected HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No MANISHA 2025.05.17 12:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment