529 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA NIHAL SINGH STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON’BLE MR. Present: Ms for the petitioner. Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG, Punjab. HARPREET SINGH BRAR 1. The prayer in the present conviction and order of sentence dated Special Court, Bathinda, 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 below: Section 15(b) Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 3. Brief facts of the case are that on Singh along with other police officials was going of village Doomwali by associating independent witness Jag reached near bridge of drain IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH NIHAL SINGH V/S PUNJAB HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Ms. Palvi, Advocate as amicus curiae for the petitioner. 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 08.11.2006 Special Court, Bathinda, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced the offence punishable under Section 15(b) Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter stemming from FIR No.110 dated 23.08.2003 under Section Act at Police Station Sangat. The appellant was sentenced as mentioned below: Offence 15(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Rigorous imprisonment for a period of three Rs.2,500 of fine, to further undergo months. Brief facts of the case are that on 23.08.2003, when along with other police officials was going of village Doomwali by associating independent witness Jag reached near bridge of drain, in connection with IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-S-960-SB-2007 Date of decision: 21.05.2025 ...APPELLANT ...RESPONDENT HARPREET SINGH BRAR amicus curiae appeal is to set aside the judgment of 08.11.2006 passed by learned Judge, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced (b) 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 three years and to pay fine of 2,500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for 03 23.08.2003, when ASI Gurdas along with other police officials was going from Pathrala to main road of village Doomwali by associating independent witness Jagsir Singh and with patrolling, the appellant, MANISHA 2025.05.26 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-960-SB carrying a plastic bag out of nervousness, he tried to Upon search of Subsequently, FIR 4. Learned the entire case of the prosecution hinges upon the testimonies of official witnesses. She further contends that independent witness Jagsir Singh, who was joined at the time of investigation as such, it would not be sa testimonies of official witnesses. Furthermore, there is non mandatory safeguards provided under the NDPS Act. She submits that the representative sample was sent after a delay of 04 days period as provided under the standing order of the Narcotic Control Bureau, which completely suffocates the case of the prosecution and the chances of tampering with the sample as well as the sample seals cannot be ruled out. Lastly, she submits that the appellant has already under period of 11 months and instant case and 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 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 SB-2007 2 plastic bag over his head was seen coming out of nervousness, he tried to slip away. On suspicion, Upon search of plastic bag, 16 kgs of Poppy Husk Subsequently, FIR (supra) was registered under Section Learned amicus curiae for the appellant the entire case of the prosecution hinges upon the testimonies of official witnesses. She further contends that independent witness Jagsir Singh, who was joined at the time of investigation, was not examined by the prosecution, as such, it would not be safe to convict the appellant solely on the basis of testimonies of official witnesses. Furthermore, there is non mandatory safeguards provided under the NDPS Act. She submits that the representative sample was sent after a delay of 04 days period as provided under the standing order of the Narcotic Control Bureau, which completely suffocates the case of the prosecution and the chances of tampering with the sample as well as the sample seals cannot be ruled out. submits that the appellant has already under months and 27 days, out of total sentence of instant case and he is not involved in any other case. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer 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 he record with their able assistance, it transpires that the appellant was convicted for being in possession of 16 kgs of Poppy Husk was seen coming. On seeing the police, On suspicion, he was apprehended. Poppy Husk was recovered. was registered under Section 15 of the NDPS Act. for the appellant inter alia contends that the entire case of the prosecution hinges upon the testimonies of official witnesses. She further contends that independent witness Jagsir Singh, who was not examined by the prosecution, fe to convict the appellant solely on the basis of testimonies of official witnesses. Furthermore, there is non-compliance of mandatory safeguards provided under the NDPS Act. She submits that the representative sample was sent after a delay of 04 days, beyond the stipulated period as provided under the standing order of the Narcotic Control Bureau, which completely suffocates the case of the prosecution and the chances of tampering with the sample as well as the sample seals cannot be ruled out. submits that the appellant has already undergone total custody , out of total sentence of three years, in the 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 based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record as such, he does Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing he record with their able assistance, it transpires that the appellant was Poppy Husk, which falls under MANISHA 2025.05.26 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-960-SB the purview of Section already undergone sentence of three years, punishment prescribed under Section commercial quantity 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 has opined that awarding of sentence is not a 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 offenc 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 b 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 refo 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 SB-2007 3 of Section 15 of NDPS Act. As per already undergone an actual sentence of 11 months and three years, in the instant case. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Section 15 of commercial quantity this Court is of the opinion that it would be 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 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 b 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 refo 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 NDPS Act. As per his custody certificate, he has months and 27 days out of total in the instant case. Since there is no minimum 15 of NDPS Act, for the non- 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 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 e, 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. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravada Sasikala vs. State hat 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 MANISHA 2025.05.26 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-960-SB 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 (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 Court, Bathinda (ii) The order of sentence extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for and fine is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by 11. The High Court Legal Services Authority is directed to remuneration to May 21, 2025 manisha (i) (ii) SB-2007 4 which the crime was committed and the conduct of the accused to strike a n 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 23.08.2003 and the appellant has been suffering the agony of trial for last more than 21 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 08.11.2006 Special Court, Bathinda is upheld. (ii) The order of sentence dated 08.11.2006 extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for and fine along with default mechanism awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by The High Court Legal Services Authority is directed to the learned Amicus Curiae as per rules. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable which the crime was committed and the conduct of the accused to strike a n 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 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 08.11.2006 passed by the learned Judge, 08.11.2006 is modified to the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years along with default mechanism awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by him. The High Court Legal Services Authority is directed to pay as per rules. HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No MANISHA 2025.05.26 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment