241 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA SURAJ KUMAR STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON’BLE MR. Present: Mr. for the Mr. Nitesh Sharma, DAG, Punjab. HARPREET SINGH BRAR 1. The prayer in the conviction and order of sentence dated Special Court, Hoshiarpur, for the offence punishable under Section Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter stemming from FIR No. Act at Police Station 2. The appellant was sentenced a Section 18 Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH SURAJ KUMAR V/S PUNJAB HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. Akhil Aggarwal, Advocate as amicus curiae for the appellant. Mr. Nitesh Sharma, DAG, Punjab. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) The prayer in the present appeal is to set aside the and order of sentence dated 16.08.2012 Special Court, Hoshiarpur, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced the offence punishable under Section 18 Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter stemming from FIR No.216 dated 13.10.2007 under Section Act at Police Station Mahilpur, District Hoshiarpur. The appellant was sentenced as mentioned below: Offence 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Rigorous imprisonment for a period of two Rs.10,000 payment of fine, to further undergo RI for three IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-S-2541-SB-2012 Date of decision: 12.05.2025 ...APPELLANT ...RESPONDENT HARPREET SINGH BRAR amicus curiae present appeal is to set aside the judgment of 16.08.2012 passed by learned Judge, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter ‘NDPS Act’), in the case under Section 18 of the NDPS Mahilpur, District Hoshiarpur. s mentioned below: Sentence Rigorous imprisonment for a period years and to pay fine of 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months. MANISHA 2025.05.15 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-2541-SB 3. Brief facts of the case are that on Rai along with other police officials was village Tuto Mazara and reached near Jhirhi Mai Bali, one envelope was seen coming search of envelop was registered under Section 4. Learned prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. prosecution hinges upon the testimonies of official witnesses independent witness was joined during the investigation or at the time of conducting search Section 50 of NDPS Act as recovery was not Gazetted Officer the testimonies of the official witnesses and forward for the cross sustainable. Lastly, custody period of the instant case. 5. Per contra appellant as the learned Court below based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record as such, 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 SB-2012 2 Brief facts of the case are that on 13.10.2007, along with other police officials was on patrolling duty in the area of village Tuto Mazara and reached near Jhirhi Mai Bali, was seen coming. On suspicion, envelop, 01 kg of Opium was recovered. Subsequently, FIR was registered under Section 18 of the NDPS Act Learned amicus curiae for the appellant prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. He further contends that the prosecution hinges upon the testimonies of official witnesses independent witness was joined during the investigation or at the time of conducting search. Learned counsel submits that there Section 50 of NDPS Act as recovery was not Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. Further, there onies of the official witnesses and forward for the cross-examination, as such, conviction of the appellant is not Lastly, he submits that the appellant has already under custody period of 04 months and 09 days, out of total sentence of 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. Moreover, he is involved in Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record with their able assistance, it transpires that the appellant was 13.10.2007, when ASI Hakumat on patrolling duty in the area of village Tuto Mazara and reached near Jhirhi Mai Bali, the appellant, holding On suspicion, he was apprehended. Upon was recovered. Subsequently, FIR (supra) of the NDPS Act. for the appellant inter alia contends that prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond the He further contends that the entire case of the prosecution hinges upon the testimonies of official witnesses. Furthermore, no independent witness was joined during the investigation or at the time of Learned counsel submits that there is non-compliance of Section 50 of NDPS Act as recovery was not made in the presence of any are material contradictions in initially, PW-4 did not come examination, as such, conviction of the appellant is not submits that the appellant has already undergone total , out of total sentence of two years, in , learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the has passed a well-reasoned judgment based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record as such, he does involved in one more case. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record with their able assistance, it transpires that the appellant was MANISHA 2025.05.15 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-2541-SB convicted for being in possession of purview of Section already undergone sentence of two years, punishment prescribed under Section commercial quantity of justice, if the sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by 7. In Deo Narain Mandal vs. State of U.P. (2004) 7 SCC 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 Cou 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 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 Supre 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 socie 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 SB-2012 3 convicted for being in possession of 01 kg of of Section 18 NDPS Act. As per hi already undergone an actual sentence of 04 months and two years, in the instant case. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Section 18 of 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 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 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 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 socie 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 of Opium, which falls under the his custody certificate, he has months and 09 days out of total in the instant case. Since there is no minimum 18 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 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 rt. 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. me 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 MANISHA 2025.05.15 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-2541-SB 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. 9. Further, the primary consideration in matters where the petitioner/appellant is involved in other NDPS c of the offence. Moreover, Co appropriate to reduce the sentence imposed upon the accused already undergone by them, in spite of their involvement in other cases pertaining to the NDPS Act in Punjab in CRA- Haryana in CRA Haryana in CRA Haryana in CRA and others vs. State of Punjab 28.03.2025. 10. 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 a law-abiding citizen and desires to live a peaceful life. 11. Therefore, in view of the discussion above, disposed of in the following terms: SB-2012 4 circumstances of each case by noticing the nature of the crime, the manner in 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 Further, the primary consideration in matters where the petitioner/appellant is involved in other NDPS c of the offence. Moreover, Co-ordinate benches of this Court have deemed it appropriate to reduce the sentence imposed upon the accused already undergone by them, in spite of their involvement in other cases ertaining to the NDPS Act in Pritam Singh @ Preeti vs. State of -S-1769-SB-2010 decided on 03.04.2025, CRA-S-986-SB-2005 decided on 11.05.2018 CRA-S-68-SB-2005 decided on 28.04.2023, CRA-S-34-SB-2005 decided on 28.04.2023 and others vs. State of Punjab in CRA- A perusal of the judgment of conviction passed by the learned 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 13.10.2007 and the appellant has been suffering the 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:- circumstances of each case by noticing the nature of the crime, the manner in 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 Further, the primary consideration in matters where the petitioner/appellant is involved in other NDPS cases ought to be the severity ordinate benches of this Court have deemed it appropriate to reduce the sentence imposed upon the accused to be the custody already undergone by them, in spite of their involvement in other cases Pritam Singh @ Preeti vs. State of decided on 03.04.2025, Ram Lal vs. State of decided on 11.05.2018, Raj Pal vs. State of 28.04.2023, Raj Pal vs. State of decided on 28.04.2023 and Gurmail Singh -S-1976-SB-2007 decided on A perusal of the judgment of conviction passed by the learned 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 abiding citizen and desires to live a peaceful life. Therefore, in view of the discussion above, the present appeal is MANISHA 2025.05.15 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-2541-SB (i) The judgment dated Special Court, Hoshiarpur (ii) The order of sentence extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for and fine of Rs. the undergone by 11. The High Court Legal Services Authority is directed to remuneration to May 12, 2025 manisha (i) (ii) SB-2012 5 (i) The judgment dated 16.08.2012 Special Court, Hoshiarpur is upheld. (ii) The order of sentence dated 16.08.2012 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. The High Court Legal Services Authority is directed to the learned Amicus Curiae as per rules. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 16.08.2012 passed by the learned Judge, is upheld. 16.08.2012 is modified to the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years along with default mechanism awarded to appellant is reduced to the period of sentence already The High Court Legal Services Authority is directed to pay as per rules. HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No MANISHA 2025.05.15 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment