203 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA BALWINDER KUMAR STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON’BLE MR. Present: Mr. Advocate Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab. HARPREET SINGH BRAR 1. The prayer in the present appeal is to set aside the conviction dated 21.11.2009 learned Judge, Special Court and sentenced for Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter ‘NDPS Act’), in the case stemming from FIR No. registered under Section Jalandhar. 2. The appellant of Opium, as mentioned below: Section 18(c) Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH BALWINDER KUMAR @ BINDER V/S PUNJAB HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. D.N. Ganeriwala, Senior Advocate Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) The prayer in the present appeal is to set aside the dated 21.11.2009 and order of sentence dated Judge, Special Court, Jalandhar, whereby for the offence punishable under Section Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter in the case stemming from FIR No. under Section 18/61/85 of NDPS Act at Police The appellant was sentenced for keeping in his possession 2 kgs as mentioned below: Offence 18(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years Rs.15,000 payment of fine, to further undergo IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-S-2986-SB-2009 Date of decision: 05.05.2025 ...APPELLANT ...RESPONDENT HARPREET SINGH BRAR Advocate with Mr. M.K. Yadav, Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab. The prayer in the present appeal is to set aside the judgment of and order of sentence dated 30.11.2009 passed by whereby, the appellant was convicted e offence punishable under Section 18(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as in the case stemming from FIR No.182 dated 30.09.2004 Act at Police Station Phillaur, for keeping in his possession 2 kgs Sentence Rigorous imprisonment for a period four years and to pay fine of 15,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo MANISHA 2025.05.09 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-2986-SB 3. Learned Counsel for the the impugned judgment of conviction dated Judge, Special Court, Jalandhar modification of the order on quantum of sentence sentence already undergone by the appellant the appellant has undergone a period of involved in any other case. 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 co the record with their able assistance, it transpires that the appellant convicted for being in possession of purview of Section appellant has undergone a period of sentence of four years, case. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Section NDPS Act, for the non would be in the interest of justice, if the sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by 6. In Deo Narain Mandal vs. State of U. 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 SB-2009 2 RI for 03 months. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 21.11.2009 Judge, Special Court, Jalandhar 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, has undergone a period of 03 months and 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 02 kgs of of Section 18 of NDPS Act. As per the custody certificate, the appellant has undergone a period of 03 months and four years, in the instant case and he is not involved in any other Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Section for the non-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. 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 03 months. submits that he is not assailing 21.11.2009 passed by learned on merits and restricts his prayer to modification of the order on quantum of sentence dated 30.11.2009 to that of As per the custody certificate, months and 03 days and he is not , 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 unsel for the parties and after perusing the record with their able assistance, it transpires that the appellant was of Opium, which falls under the As per the custody certificate, the months and 03 days, out of total he is not involved in any other Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Section 18 of this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice, if the sentence awarded to the appellant is . 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 MANISHA 2025.05.09 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-2986-SB 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, sho 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 excessively harsh nor does it come across as lenient. 7. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in of AP AIR 2017 SC 1166 serves a social purpose as it ac 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 ev 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 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 SB-2009 3 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 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 ev 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 30.09.2004 and the appellant agony of trial for last more than 20 years. Since abiding citizen and desires to live a peaceful life. 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, uld 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 ts 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 appellant has been suffering the years. Since his conviction, he has grown to live a peaceful life. MANISHA 2025.05.09 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-2986-SB 9. Therefore, in view of the discussion above, disposed of in the following terms: (i) The judgment dated Special Court, Jalandhar (ii) The order of sentence extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for and fine of Rs. the appellant is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by May 05, 2025 manisha (i) (ii) SB-2009 4 Therefore, in view of the discussion above, n the following terms:- (i) The judgment dated 21.11.2009 Special Court, Jalandhar is upheld. (ii) The order of sentence dated 30.11.2009 extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for and fine of Rs.15,000/- along with default mechanism awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by him. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable Therefore, in view of the discussion above, present appeal is 21.11.2009 passed by the learned Judge, 30.11.2009 is modified to the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for four 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 2025.05.09 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment