201 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA PURAN SINGH STATE OF HARYANA CORAM: HON’BLE MR. Present: Ms. Suman Sagar, Mr. Om Kala Yadav, Advocate for Mr. Jitender Dhanda, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG, Haryana. HARPREET SINGH BRAR 1. The prayer in the present appeal is to set aside the conviction and order of sentence dated 25.02.2009 Additional Sessions Judge, and sentenced for Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter ‘NDPS Act’), in the case stemming from FIR No. registered under Section 2. The appellant 200 grams of Poppy Husk Section 15(b) Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH PURAN SINGH V/S HARYANA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Ms. Suman Sagar, Advocate and Mr. Om Kala Yadav, Advocate for Mr. Jitender Dhanda, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG, Haryana. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) The prayer in the present appeal is to set aside the conviction and order of sentence dated 25.02.2009 Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad, whereby for the offence punishable under Section Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter in the case stemming from FIR No. under Section 15 of NDPS Act at Police Station The appellant was sentenced for keeping in his possession Poppy Husk, as mentioned below: Offence 15(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years Rs.2,000 of fine, to further undergo IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-S-594-SB-2009 Date of decision: 05.05.2025 ...APPELLANT ...RESPONDENT HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG, Haryana. The prayer in the present appeal is to set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.02.2009 passed by learned whereby, the appellant was convicted the offence punishable under Section 15(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as in the case stemming from FIR No.406 dated 29.09.2005 Act at Police Station Ratia. for keeping in his possession 25 kgs Sentence Rigorous imprisonment for a period two years and to pay fine of 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for 01 MANISHA 2025.05.08 18:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-594-SB 3. Learned Counsel for the assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad prayer to modification of the order on quantum of sentence to that of sentence already undergone by the appellant certificate, the appellant has undergone he is not involved in any other case. 4. Per contra appellant as the learned Court below has passed a well based on correct appreciation of evidence 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 convicted for being in possession of falls under the certificate, the appellant has undergone a period of of total sentence of other case. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Section 15 of NDPS Act, that it 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.P. (2004) 7 SCC 257 Hon'ble Supreme Court formality in criminal cases. When a minimum and maximum term is SB-2009 2 month. Learned Counsel for the appellant assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad prayer to modification of the order on quantum of sentence to that of sentence already undergone by the appellant certificate, the appellant has undergone a period of he is not 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 25 kgs 200 grams falls under the purview of Section 15 of NDPS Act. certificate, the appellant has undergone a period of of total sentence of two years, in the instant case Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Section NDPS Act, for the non-commercial quantity that it would be in the interest of justice, if the sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by 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 appellant submits that she is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 25.02.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad on merits and restricts her prayer to modification of the order on quantum of sentence dated 25.02.2009 to that of sentence already undergone by the appellant. As per the custody a period of 04 months and 08 days and , learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the appellant as the learned Court below has passed a well-reasoned judgment available on record as such, he does Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record with their able assistance, it transpires that the appellant was 200 grams of Poppy Husk, which NDPS Act. As per the custody certificate, the appellant has undergone a period of 04 months and 08 days, out in the instant case and he is not involved in any Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Section 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.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 MANISHA 2025.05.08 18:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-594-SB 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. 7. 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 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 co 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 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, 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 gard 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 29.09.2005 and the appellant agony of trial for last more than 19 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, 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 gard 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 nduct 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 to live a peaceful life. MANISHA 2025.05.08 18:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-594-SB 9. Therefore, in view of the discussion above, disposed of in the following terms: (i) The judgment dated Additional Sessions Judge, (ii) The 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, disposed of in the following terms:- (i) The judgment dated 25.02.2009 Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad (ii) The order of sentence dated 25.02.2009 extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for and fine of Rs.2,000/- 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 25.02.2009 passed by the learned Fatehabad is upheld. 25.02.2009 is modified to the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two 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 2025.05.08 18:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment