202 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA HARKRISHAN STATE OF HARYANA CORAM: HON’BLE MR. Present: Ms Mr. Satbir Singh Gill, for the Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG, Haryana. HARPREET SINGH BRAR 1. The prayer in the present appeal is to set aside the conviction dated 06.11.2009 learned Additional Sessions and sentenced for Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter ‘NDPS Act’), in the case stemming from FIR No. registered under Section 15 2. The appellant Section 15 Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH HARKRISHAN V/S HARYANA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Ms. Neha Bindal, Advocate for Mr. Satbir Singh Gill, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG, Haryana. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) The prayer in the present appeal is to set aside the dated 06.11.2009 and order of sentence dated Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa whereby the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter in the case stemming from FIR No. under Section 15/16/61/85 of NDPS Act at Police Stat 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.10,000/ payment of fine, to further undergo SI for two months. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-S-2808-SB-2009 Date of decision: 25.03.2025 ...APPELLANT ...RESPONDENT HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG, Haryana. The prayer in the present appeal is to set aside the judgment of and order of sentence dated 11.11.2009 passed by whereby the appellant was convicted the offence punishable under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as in the case stemming from FIR No.132 dated 02.06.2006 Act at Police Station Ellenabad. 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 two months. MANISHA 2025.03.27 18:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-2808-SB 3. Brief facts of the case are that Singh along with other police officials was village Kripal Patti, in connection with patrolling and reached near Kripal Patti, appellant was seen coming in a car. On seeing the police, he tried to turn the car back, but was apprehended on suspicion. Upon search of ca bag was recovered, from which, Subsequently, FIR 4. Learned Counsel for the assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated learned Additional Sessions modification of the order on quantum of sentence sentence already appellant has undergone actual custody period of 02 months and 02 days is not involved in any other case. 5. Per contra appellant as the 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 convicted for being in possession of under the purview appellant has undergone actual custody period of 02 mont of total sentence of other case. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Section SB-2009 2 Brief facts of the case are that on Singh along with other police officials was going from village Moju Khera to village Kripal Patti, in connection with patrolling and reached near Kripal appellant was seen coming in a car. On seeing the police, he tried to turn the car back, but was apprehended on suspicion. Upon search of ca bag was recovered, from which, 39.100 kgs of Poppy Subsequently, FIR (supra) was registered under Section 15 of the NDPS Act Learned Counsel for the appellant assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa on merits and restricts modification of the order on quantum of sentence sentence already undergone by the appellant. As per his custody certificate, the appellant has undergone actual custody period of 02 months and 02 days is not involved in any other case. 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. 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 39.100 kg purview of Section 15 NDPS Act. As per his custody certificate, the appellant has undergone actual custody period of 02 mont of total sentence of two years, in the instant case Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Section on 02.06.2006, when SI Ishwar going from village Moju Khera to village Kripal Patti, in connection with patrolling and reached near Kripal appellant was seen coming in a car. On seeing the police, he tried to turn the car back, but was apprehended on suspicion. Upon search of car, a gunny kgs of Poppy Straw was recovered. was registered under Section 15 of the NDPS Act. appellant submits that she is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 06.11.2009 passed by on merits and restricts her prayer to modification of the order on quantum of sentence dated 11.11.2009 to that of As per his custody certificate, the appellant has undergone actual custody period of 02 months and 02 days and , learned State counsel opposes the prayer of 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 assistance, it transpires that the appellant was kgs of poppy straw, which falls As per his custody certificate, the appellant has undergone actual custody period of 02 months and 02 days, out , in the instant case and is not involved in any Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Section MANISHA 2025.03.27 18:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-2808-SB 15 NDPS Act, that it would be in the interest 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 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, whi 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 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 c balance between the efficacy of law and the chances of reformation of the accused. SB-2009 3 for the non-commercial quantity that it would be in the interest of justice, if the sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by 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, whi 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 g 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 egard 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 commercial 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. Deo Narain Mandal vs. State of U.P. (2004) 7 SCC 257, the 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 g 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 , 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 egard 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 onduct of the accused to strike a balance between the efficacy of law and the chances of reformation of the MANISHA 2025.03.27 18:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-2808-SB 9. A perusal of the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court indicates no perversity in its findings and the same is base correct appreciation of evidence available on record. However, the FIR (supra) was lodged on agony of trial for into law-abiding citizen 10. Therefore, in view of the discussion above, disposed of in the following terms: (i) The judgment dated Additional Sessions (ii) The extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for and fine of Rs. the appellant is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by March 25, 2025 manisha (i) (ii) SB-2009 4 A perusal of the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court indicates no perversity in its findings and the same is base correct appreciation of evidence available on record. However, the FIR ) was lodged on 02.06.2006 and the appellant 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 06.11.2009 Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa is upheld. (ii) The order of sentence dated 11.11.2009 extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for and fine of Rs.10,000/- 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 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 06.11.2009 passed by the learned is upheld. 11.11.2009 is modified to the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years along with default mechanism awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period of sentence already 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