251 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA GURMEET SINGH STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON’BLE MR. Present: Ms for the Mr. Nitesh Sharma, DAG, Punjab. HARPREET SINGH BRAR 1. The prayer in the present appeal is to conviction and order of sentence dated Special Court, Amritsar, for the offence punishable under Section Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter the case stemming from FIR No. 22 of NDPS Act at Police Station 2. The appellant grams of Smack Section 21 Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH GURMEET SINGH V/S PUNJAB HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR s. Hargun Sandhu, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Nitesh Sharma, DAG, Punjab. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) The prayer in the present appeal is to conviction and order of sentence dated 13.12.2011 Special Court, Amritsar, whereby the appellant the offence punishable under Section 21 ic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter the case stemming from FIR No.54 dated 13.03.2008 Act at Police Station “A” Division, Amritsar. The appellant was sentenced for keeping in his possession grams of Smack, as mentioned below: Offence 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years Rs.20,000 payment of fine, to further undergo RI for 06 months. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-S-131-SB-2012 Date of decision: 08.04.2025 ...APPELLANT ...RESPONDENT HARPREET SINGH BRAR The prayer in the present appeal is to set aside the judgment of 13.12.2011 passed by learned Judge, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and referred to as ‘NDPS Act’), in 13.03.2008 registered under Section Division, Amritsar. for keeping in his possession 100 Sentence Rigorous imprisonment for a period three years and to pay fine of 20,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 06 months. MANISHA 2025.04.22 18:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-131-SB 3. Learned Counsel for the assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated learned Judge, Special Court, Amritsar modification of the order on quantum of sentence sentence already undergone by the appellant the appellant has undergone a period of 4. 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. 5. 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 the purview of Section appellant has undergone a period of sentence of three years, 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 6. In Deo Nar 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 d 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, SB-2012 2 Learned Counsel for the appellant assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated Judge, Special Court, Amritsar on merits and restricts his prayer to modification of the order on quantum of sentence sentence already undergone by the appellant. As per the custody certificate, the appellant has undergone a period of 09 months 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, deserve any leniency. Further, the appellant is involved in other cases also. 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 100 grams of Sections 21/22 NDPS Act. As per the custody certificate, the appellant has undergone a period of 09 months and three years, in the instant case. 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 d 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, appellant submits that she is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 13.12.2011 passed by merits and restricts his prayer to modification of the order on quantum of sentence dated 13.12.2011 to that of As per the custody certificate, months and 01 day in custody. , 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 Further, the appellant is involved in other cases also. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record with their able assistance, it transpires that the appellant was 100 grams of Smack, which falls under As per the custody certificate, the months and 01 day, out of total 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 ain 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, MANISHA 2025.04.22 18:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-131-SB age of the accused, should be considered while determining the quantum of sentence and thi 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 7. 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 n 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 n 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. 8. 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 agony of trial for into law-abiding citizen 9. Therefore, in view of the discussion above, disposed of in the following terms: (i) The judgment dated Special Court, Amritsar SB-2012 3 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 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 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 ) was lodged on 13.03.2008 and the appellant agony of trial for last more than 17 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 13.12.2011 Special Court, Amritsar is upheld. age of the accused, should be considered while determining the quantum of s 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 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 ot 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 ature 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 to live a peaceful life. Therefore, in view of the discussion above, present appeal is 13.12.2011 passed by the learned Judge, MANISHA 2025.04.22 18:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-131-SB (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 undergone by April 08, 2025 manisha (i) (ii) SB-2012 4 (ii) The order of sentence of even date the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for years and fine of Rs.20,000/- along with default mechanism arded to the appellant is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by him. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable of even date 13.12.2011 is modified to the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three along with default mechanism arded to the appellant is reduced to the period of sentence HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No MANISHA 2025.04.22 18:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment