CRA-S-2886-SB-2009 (O&M) 1 204 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-S-2886-SB-2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 27.03.2025 JAGDEV SINGH ...APPELLANT Versus STATE OF HARYANA ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Haneesh Kumar, Advocate for for Mr. G.S. Sullar, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG Haryana. *** Harpreet Singh Brar, J. (Oral) 1. Present appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment of conviction and order on quantum of sentence dated 14.09.2009 passed by learned Special Judge, Ambala vide which the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as mentioned below: Offence under Section Sentence Fine Sentence in default of payment of fine 15(b) of NDPS Act Rigorous imprisonment for five years Rs. 5,000/- Rigorous imprisonment for 06 months 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the prosecution case are that on 18.05.1994, ASI Rameshwar Parshad along with other police officials were present at bus stand Ambala Cantt, where he received a secret information that a Sikh gentleman namely Jagdev Singh, was indulging in the sale of the poppy husk and if raid is conducted, he could be caught red handed. Finding information to the reliable, naka was laid and accused-appellant Jagdev Singh, who was carrying a gunny bag, was apprehended on the basis of suspicion. His identity was verified. Search of the accused-appellant and his belongings was conducted and on checking the gunny bag, held by appellant, poppy husk AJAY GOSWAMI 2025.04.01 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-2886-SB-2009 (O&M) 2 weighing 40 KG was recovered. Two samples each weighing 250 grams were separated from the bulk. Separate parcels of the samples as well as remaining bulk of the poppy husk were prepared, which were sealed. FIR(supra) was registered under Sections 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘NDPS Act’). 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 14.09.2009 passed by learned, Special Judge, Ambala on merits and restricts his prayer to modification of the order on quantum of sentence dated 14.09.2009 to that of sentence already undergone by the appellant as he has already undergone a period of 02 years 03 months and 21 days out of total sentence of 05 years imposed upon him. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the appellant on the ground that learned trial Court has passed a well-reasoned judgment based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record. The appellant is also involved in three more cases under the IPC and as such, the appellant does 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 was convicted for being in possession of 40 kilogram of poppy husk, attracting the offence under Section 15 of NDPS Act, for which no minimum punishment has been prescribed. As per custody certificate, he has already undergone an actual sentence of 02 years 03 months and 21 days out of total sentence of 05 years, in the instant case. Moreover, learned counsel for the appellant has not assailed the judgment of conviction on merits. Rather, he has restricted his prayer only qua modification of order on quantum of sentence. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Section 15 of NDPS Act, this Court is of the AJAY GOSWAMI 2025.04.01 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-2886-SB-2009 (O&M) 3 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 Narain Mandal v. State of UP (2004) 7 SCC 257, a three Judge bench of 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. 7. Further, a two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravada Sasikala v. State 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 accused. 8. A perusal of the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court indicates no perversity in its findings and the said judgment is based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record. However, the FIR (supra) AJAY GOSWAMI 2025.04.01 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-2886-SB-2009 (O&M) 4 was lodged on 18.05.1994 and the appellant has been suffering the agony of trial for last more than 30 years. 9. Therefore, in view of the discussion above, the present appeal is disposed of in the following terms:- (i) The judgment dated 14.09.2009 passed by the learned Special Judge, Ambala is upheld. (ii) The order of sentence dated 14.09.2009 is modified to the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 05 years and fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default mechanism awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by him. 10. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 27.03.2025 Ajay Goswami Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No AJAY GOSWAMI 2025.04.01 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document