783 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA BALJINDER SINGH STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON’BLE MR. Present: Mr. for the petitioner. Mr. Nitesh Sharma, DAG, Punjab. HARPREET SINGH BRAR 1. The prayer in conviction and order of sentence dated 04.01.2008 Special Court, Bathinda, for the offence punishable under Section Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter stemming from FIR No. Act at Police Station Talwandi Sabo. 2. The appellant was sentenced as mentioned below: Section 21 Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH BALJINDER SINGH V/S PUNJAB HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. Parvinder Singh, Advocate as amicus curiae for the petitioner. Mr. Nitesh Sharma, DAG, Punjab. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) The prayer in the present appeal is to set aside the and order of sentence dated 04.01.2008 Special Court, Bathinda, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced the offence punishable under Section 21 Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter stemming from FIR No.49 dated 29.05.2006 under Section Act at Police Station Talwandi Sabo. The appellant was sentenced as mentioned below: Offence 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months Rs.500/- fine, to further undergo month. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-S-74-SB-2008 Date of decision: 03.04.2025 ...APPELLANT ...RESPONDENT HARPREET SINGH BRAR amicus curiae the present appeal is to set aside the judgment of and order of sentence dated 04.01.2008 passed by learned Judge, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter ‘NDPS Act’), in the case under Section 21 of the NDPS The appellant was sentenced as mentioned below: Sentence Rigorous imprisonment for a period six months and to pay fine of and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for 01 MANISHA 2025.04.04 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-74-SB-2008 3. Brief facts of the case are that on Lal along with other police officials area of Teona Pujarian, spotted while crossing the road slipping towards police, he threw something wrapped in a glazed paper on the ground. suspicion, he was apprehended. Smack was recovered. Subsequent Section 21 of the NDPS Act 4. Learned there is non-compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. He further contends that as per the case set up by the prosecution, the appellant was apprehended by the police party on a thoroughfare place, which was frequently visited by a large number of general investigating officer. Furthermore, the entire case of the prosecution hinges upon the testimonies of official witnesses. He submits that there is non compliance of Section 57 of the NDPS Act. appellant has already under out of total sentence of any other case. 5. 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. 6. Having heard learned c the record with their able assistance, it transpires that the appellant was 2008 2 Brief facts of the case are that on along with other police officials reached half kilometer ahead from the area of Teona Pujarian, in connection with spotted while crossing the road slipping towards threw something wrapped in a glazed paper on the ground. was apprehended. Upon search of was recovered. Subsequently, FIR (supra) of the NDPS Act. Learned amicus curiae for the appellant compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. He further contends that as per the case set up by the prosecution, the appellant was apprehended by the police party on a thoroughfare place, which was frequently visited by a large number of general public, yet no independent witness was joined by the investigating officer. Furthermore, the entire case of the prosecution hinges upon the testimonies of official witnesses. He submits that there is non compliance of Section 57 of the NDPS Act. appellant has already undergone total custody period of out of total sentence of 06 months, in the instant case 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, 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 Brief facts of the case are that on 29.05.2006 when ASI Kundal reached half kilometer ahead from the in connection with patrolling, the appellant was spotted while crossing the road slipping towards Kikkar trees. On seeing the threw something wrapped in a glazed paper on the ground. On Upon search of glazed paper, 10 grams of (supra) was registered under for the appellant inter alia contends that compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. He further contends that as per the case set up by the prosecution, the appellant was apprehended by the police party on a thoroughfare place, which was frequently visited by a public, yet no independent witness was joined by the investigating officer. Furthermore, the entire case of the prosecution hinges upon the testimonies of official witnesses. He submits that there is non- compliance of Section 57 of the NDPS Act. Lastly, he submits that the gone total custody period of 01 month and 15 days, in the instant case and he is not involved in , 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 ounsel for the parties and after perusing the record with their able assistance, it transpires that the appellant was MANISHA 2025.04.04 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-74-SB-2008 convicted for being in possession of purview of Section already undergone sentence of 06 months, punishment prescribed under Section 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 h 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, whic 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 rega granted and such discretion is to be exercised by evaluating all attending 2008 3 convicted for being in possession of 10 grams of Smack of Section 21 NDPS Act. As per his already undergone an actual sentence of 01 month 06 months, in the instant case. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Section 21 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 discretionary element is vested in the Court. Background of each case, whic 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 ll 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 10 grams of Smack, which falls under the his custody certificate, he has 01 month and 15 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 Deo Narain Mandal vs. State of U.P. (2004) 7 SCC 257, the as 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 ll 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 rd is well settled that opportunities of reformation must be granted and such discretion is to be exercised by evaluating all attending MANISHA 2025.04.04 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-74-SB-2008 circumstances of each case by noticing the nature of the crime, the manner in which the crime was committed and the cond 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 findings and the same is based o 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. appellant is reduced to the by him 11. The High Court Legal Services Authority is directed to remuneration to April 03, 2025 manisha (i) (ii) 2008 4 circumstances of each case by noticing the nature of the crime, the manner in which the crime was committed and the cond 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 o correct appreciation of evidence available on record. However, the FIR ) was lodged on 29.05.2006 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. Therefore, in view of the discussion above, disposed of in the following terms:- (i) The judgment dated 04.01.2008 Special Court, Bathinda is upheld. (ii) The order of sentence of dated extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for and fine of Rs.500/- along with default mechanism awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone 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 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 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. Therefore, in view of the discussion above, the present appeal is 04.01.2008 passed by the learned Judge, of dated 04.01.2008 is modified to the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months along with default mechanism awarded to the period of sentence already undergone The High Court Legal Services Authority is directed to pay as per rules. HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No MANISHA 2025.04.04 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment