259 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-S-2115-SB-2011 Date of decision: 14.07.2025 IRPHAN @ PHANA ...APPELLANT V/S STATE OF PUNJAB ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Ms. Kamalpreet Kaur Sohi, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Nitesh Sharma, DAG, Punjab. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) 1. The prayer in the present appeal is to set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.08.2011 passed by learned Judge, Special Court, Patiala, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter ‘NDPS Act’), in the case stemming from FIR No.84 dated 06.04.2007 under Section 18 of the NDPS Act at Police Station Samana. 2. The appellant was sentenced as mentioned below: Offence Sentence Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Rigorous imprisonment for a period of four months and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for 01 month. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 06.04.2007 when ASI Devinder Singh along with other police officials was present at Bus Stand Gheora, in MANISHA 2025.07.15 16:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-2115-SB-2011 2 connection with patrolling, a car driven by the appellant bearing registration No.HR-06E-9646 came from Nawan Gaon side. Upon search, 200 grams of Opium was recovered from the right pocket of worn trouser of the appellant. Subsequently, FIR (supra) was registered under Section 18 of the NDPS Act. 4. Learned amicus curiae for the appellant inter alia contends that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. She further contends that the entire case of the prosecution hinges upon the testimonies of official witnesses. Furthermore, the investigating officer has made no efforts to join the independent witness during the investigation or before making alleged recovery. Learned counsel submits that Form No.29 was not filled at the spot. Further, there is a delay in sending the representative sample to the office of chemical examiner, as such, link evidence in the prosecution case is clearly missing, which suffocates the entire process. Lastly, she submits that the appellant has already undergone total custody period of 01 month and 21 days, out of total sentence of four months, in the instant case and he is not involved in any other case. 5. Per contra, 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 not deserve any leniency. 6. 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 200 grams of Opium, which falls under the purview of Section 18 NDPS Act. As per his custody certificate, he has already undergone an actual sentence of 01 month and 18 days out of total MANISHA 2025.07.15 16:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-2115-SB-2011 3 sentence of four months, in the instant case. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Section 18 of NDPS Act, 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. 7. In 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 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. 8. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravada Sasikala vs. 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 MANISHA 2025.07.15 16:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-2115-SB-2011 4 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 evidence available on record. However, the FIR (supra) was lodged on 06.04.2007 and the appellant has been suffering the agony of trial for last more than 18 years. Since his conviction, he has grown into a law-abiding citizen and desires to live a peaceful life. 10. Therefore, in view of the discussion above, the present appeal is disposed of in the following terms:- (i) The judgment dated 12.08.2011 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, Patiala is upheld. (ii) The order of sentence dated 12.08.2011 is modified to the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for four months and fine along with default mechanism awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by him. 11. The High Court Legal Services Authority is directed to pay remuneration to the learned Amicus Curiae as per rules. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) July 14, 2025 JUDGE manisha (i) Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No (ii) Whether reportable Yes/No MANISHA 2025.07.15 16:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document