203 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA MALKIAT SINGH STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON’BLE MR. Present: Mr. for the Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab. HARPREET SINGH BRAR 1. The prayer in the present appeal is to conviction and order of sentence dated Special Court, Barnala 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 MALKIAT SINGH V/S PUNJAB HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. P.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) The prayer in the present appeal is to conviction and order of sentence dated 12.07.2010 Barnala whereby the appellant was the offence punishable under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and c Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter the case stemming from FIR No.17 dated 18.03.2008 Act at Police Station Barnala. 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 two years Rs.1,000/ of fine, to further undergo three months. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-S-1686-SB-2010 Date of decision: 25.03.2025 ...APPELLANT ...RESPONDENT HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab. The prayer in the present appeal is to set aside the judgment of 12.07.2010 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 18.03.2008 registered under Section sentenced as mentioned below: Sentence Rigorous imprisonment for a period two years and to pay fine of 00/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for months. MANISHA 2025.03.27 18:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-1686-SB 3. Brief facts of the case are that Singh along with other police officials, was proceeding from link road Hamidi towards village Thuliwal, in connection with patrolling and reached near the brick kiln on link road, Kaka to village Thuliwal. At about 2:00 PM, when the police party was one and half kilometers away from village Thuliwal, appellant was seen sitting on plastic bag. On seeing the police, he turned his face backwards. On apprehended. Upon search of recovered. Subsequently, FIR NDPS Act. 4. Learned Counsel for the the impugned ju Judge, Special Court, modification of the order on quantum of sentence sentence already undergone by the appellant appellant has undergone actual custody period of 03 months and 14 days, out of total sentence of two years. 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. convicted in one more case under 6. Having heard learned the record with their able assistance, it transpires that the appellant convicted for being in possession of SB-2010 2 Brief facts of the case are that on ong with other police officials, was proceeding from link road Hamidi towards village Thuliwal, in connection with patrolling and reached near the brick kiln on link road, Kaka Singh met them and requested them to take left to village Thuliwal. At about 2:00 PM, when the police party was one and half kilometers away from village Thuliwal, appellant was seen sitting on plastic bag. On seeing the police, he turned his face backwards. On Upon search of plastic bag, 2 Subsequently, FIR (supra) was registered under Section 15 of the Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 12.07.2010 Special Court, Barnala on merits and restricts his prayer to modification of the order on quantum of sentence sentence already undergone by the appellant. As per his appellant has undergone actual custody period of 03 months and 14 days, out of total sentence of two years. 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, deserve any leniency. He further submits that the appellant has been convicted in one more case under Section 15 of 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 25 kgs of on 18.03.2008, when ASI Baljit ong with other police officials, was proceeding from link road Hamidi towards village Thuliwal, in connection with patrolling and reached near the met them and requested them to take left to village Thuliwal. At about 2:00 PM, when the police party was one and half kilometers away from village Thuliwal, appellant was seen sitting on plastic bag. On seeing the police, he turned his face backwards. On suspicion, he was 25 kgs of Poppy Husk was was registered under Section 15 of the submits that he is not assailing 12.07.2010 passed by learned on merits and restricts his prayer to modification of the order on quantum of sentence dated 12.07.2010 to that of As per his custody certificate, the appellant has undergone actual custody period of 03 months and 14 days, out , 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 He further submits that the appellant has been the NDPS Act. counsel for the parties and after perusing the record with their able assistance, it transpires that the appellant was poppy husk, which falls under MANISHA 2025.03.27 18:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-1686-SB the purview of Section 15 NDPS Act. appellant has undergone actual custody period of 03 months and 14 days, out of total sentence of two years punishment prescribed under Section 15 NDPS Act, quantity this Cou 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 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. 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 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 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 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 SB-2010 3 of Section 15 NDPS Act. As per his custody certi appellant has undergone actual custody period of 03 months and 14 days, out of total sentence of two years, in the instant case. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Section 15 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, 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 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 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 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 As per his custody certificate, the appellant has undergone actual custody period of 03 months and 14 days, out , in the instant case. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Section 15 NDPS Act, for the non-commercial rt 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 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 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. 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 circumstances of each case by noticing the nature of the crime, the manner in MANISHA 2025.03.27 18:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-1686-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 f correct appreciation of evidence available on record. However, the FIR (supra) was lodged on agony of trial for abiding citizen and desires 10. Therefore, in view of the discussion above, disposed of in the following terms: (i) The judgment dated Special Court, (ii) The order of sentence the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for years awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period of sentence already March 25, 2025 manisha (i) (ii) SB-2010 4 rime 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 18.03.2008 and the appellant agony of trial for last 17 years. Since his conviction, and desires to live a peaceful life. Therefore, in view of the discussion above, disposed of in the following terms:- (i) The judgment dated 12.07.2010 Special Court, Barnala is upheld. (ii) The order of sentence of even date the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for years and fine of Rs.1,000/- along with default mechanism awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by him. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR 5 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable rime 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 indings and the same is based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record. However, the FIR and the appellant has been suffering the conviction, he has grown into law- to live a peaceful life. Therefore, in view of the discussion above, present appeal is .2010 passed by the learned Judge, of even date 12.07.2010 is modified to the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two along with default mechanism awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period of sentence 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