250 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA BAL KISHAN STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON’BLE MR. Present: Mr. Naveen Sharma Moudgil, Advocate and Mr. Mr. Nitesh Sharma, DAG, Punjab. HARPREET SINGH BRAR 1. The conviction dated 02.02.2012 learned Judge, Special Court, and sentenced for Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter as ‘NDPS Act’) registered under Section 22 Jalandhar. 2. The appellant Offence Section 22 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Section 22 (b) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 It was ordered that both the sentences shall run concurrently. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH V/S PUNJAB HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. Naveen Sharma Moudgil, Advocate and Mr. Vijay Lath, Advocate for the appellant Mr. Nitesh Sharma, DAG, Punjab. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) The prayer in the present appeal is to set aside the dated 02.02.2012 and order of sentence dated Special Court, Jalandhar, whereby the appellant for the offence punishable under Section Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter ), in the case stemming from FIR No. under Section 22 of NDPS Act at Police The appellant was sentenced as mentioned below: Offence 22 (a) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Rigorous imprisonment for a period of 03 months and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 22 (b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Rigorous imprisonment for a period of 03 years and to pay fine of Rs. and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo It was ordered that both the sentences shall run concurrently. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-S-1555-SB-2012 Date of decision: 25.03.2025 ...APPELLANT ...RESPONDENT HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. Naveen Sharma Moudgil, Advocate and appellant. prayer in the present appeal is to set aside the judgment of and order of sentence dated 06.02.2012 passed by whereby the appellant was convicted the offence punishable under Sections 22(a) and 22(b) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to in the case stemming from FIR No.122 dated 30.08.2010 Act at Police Station Division No.5, sentenced as mentioned below: Sentence Rigorous imprisonment for a period of and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for 15 days. Rigorous imprisonment for a period of and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for 01 month. It was ordered that both the sentences shall run concurrently. MANISHA 2025.03.27 18:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-1555-SB 3. Brief facts of the case are that Anti Narcotic Cell of Police, Jalandhar along with another police official held nakabandi at Daldal Chowk, Jalandhar, upon receiving a tip that appellant was habitual of selling intoxicants and if raid is conducted, h can be nabbed with large quantity of psyc such, appellant, carrying plastic bag, was seen coming and was apprehended. Upon search of capsuls, 800 Proxyvon Spas capsule 05 tablets, 70 Rexcof vials, 1900 Momolit tablets and 3400 Woktil tablets were recovered. the NDPS Act. 4. Learned Counsel for the the impugned judgment of conviction dated Judge, Special Court, modification of the order on quantum of sentence sentence already undergone by the appellant appellant has undergone custody, out of total sentence of three 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. one more case u 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record with their able assistance, it transpires that the appellant SB-2012 2 Brief facts of the case are that on 30.08.2010 Anti Narcotic Cell of Police, Jalandhar along with another police official held at Daldal Chowk, Jalandhar, upon receiving a tip that appellant was habitual of selling intoxicants and if raid is conducted, h can be nabbed with large quantity of psychotropic drugs and capsules. such, appellant, carrying plastic bag, was seen coming and was apprehended. Upon search of plastic bag, 5040 Spasmo Proxyvon capsuls, 912 Proxyvon capsuls, 800 Proxyvon Spas capsules, 240 Enpam 05 tablets, 70 Rexcof vials, 1900 Momolit tablets and 3400 Woktil tablets were recovered. Subsequently, FIR (supra) was registered under Section Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 02.02.2012 Special Court, Jalandhar on merits and restricts his prayer to modification of the order on quantum of sentence ence already undergone by the appellant. As per his custody certificate, the undergone a period of 01 year, 10 months and 25 days out of total sentence of three years. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the pray 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 is involved in one more case under the NDPS Act. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record with their able assistance, it transpires that the appellant 30.08.2010, SI Sarabjit Singh of Anti Narcotic Cell of Police, Jalandhar along with another police official held at Daldal Chowk, Jalandhar, upon receiving a tip-off to the effect that appellant was habitual of selling intoxicants and if raid is conducted, he otropic drugs and capsules. As such, appellant, carrying plastic bag, was seen coming and was apprehended. 5040 Spasmo Proxyvon capsuls, 912 Proxyvon s, 240 Enpam-10 tablets, 770 Alprazolm- 05 tablets, 70 Rexcof vials, 1900 Momolit tablets and 3400 Woktil tablets was registered under Section 22 of submits that he is not assailing 02.02.2012 passed by learned on merits and restricts his prayer to modification of the order on quantum of sentence dated 06.02.2012 to that of . As per his custody certificate, the a period of 01 year, 10 months and 25 days of actual , 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 is involved in Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record with their able assistance, it transpires that the appellant was MANISHA 2025.03.27 18:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-1555-SB convicted for being in possession of i.e. Nitrazepam, Alprazolam and Codeine and intermediate quantity of Dextroproposyphene and Diphoexylate Section 22 of NDPS Act. As per already undergone actual custody period of about days, out of total sentence of minimum 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 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 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 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 SB-2012 3 convicted for being in possession of small quantity of psychotropic substances am, Alprazolam and Codeine and intermediate quantity of Dextroproposyphene and Diphoexylate, which falls under the NDPS Act. As per his custody certificate, already undergone actual custody period of about out of total sentence of three years, in the instant case. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Section commercial quantity this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the inte 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 mere ty 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 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 small quantity of psychotropic substances am, Alprazolam and Codeine and intermediate quantity of , which falls under the purview of his custody certificate, the appellant has already undergone actual custody period of about 01 year, 10 months and 25 , in the instant case. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Section 22 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 ty 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 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 , 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 MANISHA 2025.03.27 18:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-1555-SB law in this regard is well settled that opp 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 strik 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 e (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 Special Court, (ii) The order of sentence extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for and fine of Rs.5,000/ the appellant is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by March 25, 2025 manisha (i) (ii) SB-2012 4 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 strik 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 30.08.2010 and the appellant agony of trial for last more than 14 years. Since abiding citizen and desires to live a peaceful l Therefore, in view of the discussion above, disposed of in the following terms:- (i) The judgment dated 02.02.2012 Special Court, Jalandhar is upheld. (ii) The order of sentence dated 06.02.2012 extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for and fine of Rs.5,000/- 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 ortunities 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 vidence 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 02.02.2012 passed by the learned Judge, 06.02.2012 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 HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No MANISHA 2025.03.27 18:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment