201 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA JAG PARVESH @ JAGGU STATE OF HARYANA CORAM: HON’BLE MR. Present: Mr. Anurag Jain, Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG, Haryana. HARPREET SINGH BRAR 1. The prayer in the present appeal is conviction dated 25.02.2009 learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced Narcotic Drugs an as ‘NDPS Act’) registered under Section Bhiwani. 2. The appellant grams of Charas Section 20 Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH JAG PARVESH @ JAGGU V/S HARYANA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. Anurag Jain, Advocate for the appellant Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG, Haryana. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) The prayer in the present appeal is dated 25.02.2009 and order of sentence dated Additional Sessions Judge-III, Bhiwani, convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter ), in the case stemming from FIR No. under Sections 20/61/85 of NDPS The appellant was sentenced for keeping in his possession grams of Charas, as mentioned below: Offence 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years Rs.10,000 payment of fine, to further undergo SI for 02 months. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-S-732-SB-2009 Date of decision: 22.04.2025 ...APPELLANT ...RESPONDENT HARPREET SINGH BRAR appellant. Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG, Haryana. The prayer in the present appeal is to set aside the judgment of and order of sentence dated 26.02.2009 passed by III, Bhiwani, whereby the appellant was the offence punishable under Section 20 of the d Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to in the case stemming from FIR No.601 dated 24.10.2007 of NDPS Act at Police Station City, for keeping in his possession 400 Sentence Rigorous imprisonment for a period two years and to pay fine of 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 02 months. MANISHA 2025.04.24 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-732-SB 3. Learned Counsel for the the impugned judgment of conviction dated Additional Sessions Judge 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 counsel for the parties and after perusing the record with their able assistance, it transpires that the appellant convicted for being in possession of the purview of Section appellant has undergone a period of sentence of two 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 alrea 6. 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 SB-2009 2 Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 25.02.2009 Additional Sessions Judge-III, Bhiwani 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, the appellant 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 400 grams of Charas, of Section 20 of NDPS Act. As per the custody certificate, the appellant has undergone a period of 03 months and two 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.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 submits that he is not assailing 25.02.2009 passed by learned on merits and restricts his prayer to modification of the order on quantum of sentence dated 26.02.2009 to that of As per the custody certificate, months and 13 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 Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record with their able assistance, it transpires that the appellant was 400 grams of Charas, which falls under As per the custody certificate, the months and 13 days out of total he is not involved in any other Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Section 20 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 regard to the period of sentence, a discretionary MANISHA 2025.04.24 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-732-SB 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 determ 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 th 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 accused. 8. A perusal of the judgmen 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 9. Therefore, in view of the discussion above, disposed of in the following terms: SB-2009 3 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 determ 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 sively 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 th 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 tances 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 24.10.2007 and the appellant agony of trial for last more than 17 years. Since abiding citizen and desires to live a peaceful life. Therefore, in view of the discussion above, disposed of in the following terms:- 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 sively 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 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 tances 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 t 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. Therefore, in view of the discussion above, present appeal is MANISHA 2025.04.24 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-732-SB (i) The judgment dated Additional Sessions Judge (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 April 22, 2025 manisha (i) (ii) SB-2009 4 (i) The judgment dated 25.02.2009 Additional Sessions Judge-III, Bhiwani (ii) The order of sentence dated 26 extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for and fine of Rs.10,000/- 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 25.02.2009 passed by the learned III, Bhiwani is upheld. 26.02.2009 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 2025.04.24 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment