1337 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA KULWANT SINGH STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON’BLE MR. Present: Ms for the Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG, Punjab. HARPREET SINGH BRAR 1. The prayer in the conviction and order of sentence dated Special Court, Mansa, the offence punishable under Section Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter stemming from FIR No. Act at Police Station 2. The appellant was sentenced as mentioned below: Section 15 Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 3. Brief facts of the case are that on Singh along with other police officials was going Jhunir by associating PW Jagsir Singh and reached near channel ( IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH KULWANT SINGH V/S PUNJAB HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR s. Gurpreet Kaur, Advocate as amicus curiae for the appellant. Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG, Punjab. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) The prayer in the present appeal is to set aside the and order of sentence dated 14.12.2009 Special Court, Mansa, whereby, the appellant was convicted and sentenced the offence punishable under Section 15 Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter stemming from FIR No.40 dated 16.04.2006 under Section Act at Police Station Jhunir. The appellant was sentenced as mentioned below: Offence 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Rigorous imprisonment for a period of one Rs.1,000/ of fine, to further undergo three months. Brief facts of the case are that on along with other police officials was going Jhunir by associating PW Jagsir Singh and reached near channel ( IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-S-3127-SB-2009 Date of decision: 15.05.2025 ...APPELLANT ...RESPONDENT HARPREET SINGH BRAR amicus curiae present appeal is to set aside the judgment of 14.12.2009 passed by learned Judge, the appellant was convicted and sentenced for of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter ‘NDPS Act’), in the case under Section 15 of the NDPS The appellant was sentenced as mentioned below: Sentence Rigorous imprisonment for a period year and to pay fine of 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for three months. Brief facts of the case are that on 16.04.2006, when SI Gurdev along with other police officials was going from the side of village Jhunir by associating PW Jagsir Singh and reached near channel (kassi), MANISHA 2025.05.20 15:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-3127-SB appellant was sighted under a tree and a plast seeing the police, he tried to search of plastic (supra) was registered under Section 4. Learned the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the conscious possession of the appellant over the alleged contraband. contraband was recovered from a plastic bag was accessible to all not prove his conscious possession of the prosecution hinges upon the testimonies of the official independent witness joined at the time of investigation has not been produced before the learned trial Court She submits that that the plastic bag was lying at a distance of half and the ownership of the field is not proved. complete non-compliance of Section 57 of the NDPS Act. that the appellant has already 14 days, out of total sentence of involved in any other case. 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. SB-2009 2 appellant was sighted under a tree and a plastic bag was lying near him. seeing the police, he tried to slip. On suspicion, plastic bag, 20 kgs of Poppy Husk was recovered. Subsequently, FIR was registered under Section 15 of the NDPS Act Learned amicus curiae for the appellant the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the conscious possession of the appellant over the alleged contraband. She further contends that the contraband was recovered from a plastic bag lying in the open field, which to all and merely because the appellant was present there would not prove his conscious possession over the same of the prosecution hinges upon the testimonies of the official independent witness joined at the time of investigation has not been produced before the learned trial Court for his examination She submits that PW-2 HC Ganja Ram has admitted in his cross plastic bag was lying at a distance of half ownership of the field is not proved. She further submits that compliance of Section 57 of the NDPS Act. that the appellant has already undergone total custody period of , out of total sentence of one year, in the instant case 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, not deserve any leniency. ic bag was lying near him. On On suspicion, he was apprehended. Upon was recovered. Subsequently, FIR of the NDPS Act. for the appellant inter alia contends that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the conscious possession of the She further contends that the alleged lying in the open field, which and merely because the appellant was present there would over the same. Furthermore, the entire case of the prosecution hinges upon the testimonies of the official witnesses and the independent witness joined at the time of investigation has not been produced for his examination during the course of trial. 2 HC Ganja Ram has admitted in his cross-examination plastic bag was lying at a distance of half karam from the appellant She further submits that there is compliance of Section 57 of the NDPS Act. Lastly, she submits gone total custody period of 02 months and in the instant case 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 MANISHA 2025.05.20 15:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-3127-SB 6. Having heard learned c the record with their able assistance, it transpires that the appellant was convicted for being in possession of the purview of Section already undergone one year, in the instant case. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Section 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. 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 SB-2009 3 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 20 kgs of Poppy Husk of Section 15 of NDPS Act. As per already undergone a period of 02 months and 14 in the instant case. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Section 15 of 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 already undergone 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 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 ounsel for the parties and after perusing the record with their able assistance, it transpires that the appellant was Poppy Husk, which falls under NDPS Act. As per his custody certificate, he has 14 days out of total sentence of in the instant case. Since there is no minimum punishment 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 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 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 2025.05.20 15:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-3127-SB 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 con 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 correct appreciation of evidence available on record. However, the FIR (supra) was lodged on agony of trial for into a law-abiding citizen an 10. Therefore, in view of the discussion above, disposed of in the following terms: (i) The judgment dated Special Court, Mansa (ii) The order extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for and fine is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by 11. The High Court Legal Services Authority is directed to remuneration to May 15, 2025 manisha (i) (ii) SB-2009 4 ard 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 correct appreciation of evidence available on record. However, the FIR ) was lodged on 16.04.2006 and the appellant has been suffering the agony of trial for last more than 19 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 14.12.2009 Special Court, Mansa is upheld. (ii) The order of sentence of dated extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for and fine along with default mechanism awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by The High Court Legal Services Authority is directed to the learned Amicus Curiae as per rules. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable ard 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 duct 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 d desires to live a peaceful life. Therefore, in view of the discussion above, the present appeal is 14.12.2009 passed by the learned Judge, of dated 14.12.2009 is modified to the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year along with default mechanism awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by him. The High Court Legal Services Authority is directed to pay as per rules. HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No MANISHA 2025.05.20 15:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment