532 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-S-973-SB-2007 Date of decision: 21.03.2025 Nachhattar Singh ....Appellant Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Dhanpat Rai Singla, Advocate for Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG, Punjab. HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) 1. The prayer in the present appeal is to set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.04.2007 passed by learned Judge, Special Court, Bathinda, whereby, the appellant was convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 15(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter ‘NDPS Act’), in the case stemming from FIR No.55 dated 10.05.2003, under Section 15 of the NDPS Act at Police Station Sadar, Bathinda. 2. The appellant was sentenced as mentioned below: Offence Sentence Sections 15 (b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten months and to pay fine of Rs.1,500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month and fifteen days. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 10.05.2003, ASI Mohan Singh along with other police officials was on patrolling duty and after reaching at Bus Stand of Bir Talab, independent witness, namely, Baljit Singh associated in Neha 2025.03.25 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-973-SB-2007 -2- the police party. Thereafter, when the police party reached on turning to village Bir Behan on metalled road, the accused/appellant was coming from Katcha Path carrying bag over his head and he was apprehended with 10 Kg of Poppy Husk and two samples of 100 grams each were drawn from the bag and then sent to the chemical examiner. Subsequently, FIR (supra) was registered under Section 15 of the NDPS Act. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Court below has fallen into grave error in convicting the appellant, as his guilt has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is contended that there is non- compliance of Sections 42 & 43 of the NDPS Act. The alleged independent witness Baljit Singh has not been examined and the sample was taken into custody on 10.05.2003 and the same was sent for the Chemical Examination on 15.05.2003, as such, there is unexplained delay of 05 days in sending the representative sample to the FSL. He further contends that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not been followed in the present case. He further contends that he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 11.04.2007 on merits and restricts his prayer to modification of the order of quantum of sentence, to that of the sentence already undergone by the appellant, as he has already undergone a period of 04 months and 28 days in custody and is not involved in any other criminal case. 5. Per contra, 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 not deserve any leniency. Neha 2025.03.25 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-973-SB-2007 -3- 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 10 kg of Poppy Husk, i.e. intermediate quantity, attracting the offence of Section 15 (b) of the NDPS Act, for which no minimum punishment has been prescribed. As per his custody certificate, he is not involved in any other case and has already undergone an actual sentence of 04 months and 28 days out of total sentence of 10 months, in the instant case. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Section 15 (b) 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 undergone by him. 7. In 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 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. 8. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravada Sasikala vs. State of AP AIR 2017 SC 1166, has reiterated that the imposition of sentence also Neha 2025.03.25 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-973-SB-2007 -4- 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 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 findings and the same is based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record. However, the FIR (supra) was lodged on 10.05.2003 and the appellant has been suffering the agony of trial for last more than 21 years. Since his conviction, he has grown into a law-abiding citizen and desires to live a peaceful life. 10. Therefore, in view of the discussion above, the present appeal is disposed of in the following terms:- (i) The judgment dated 11.04.2007 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, Bathinda, is upheld. (ii) The order of sentence dated 11.04.2007 is modified to the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 10 months with fine of Rs.1,500/- along with default mechanism awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by him. Neha 2025.03.25 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-973-SB-2007 -5- 11. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 21.03.2025 Neha Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Neha 2025.03.25 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document