CRA-S-347-SB-2010 (O&M) 1 205 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-S-347-SB-2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 27.03.2025 SUKHDEV SINGH ...APPELLANT Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Ms. Kirandeep Kaur, Advocate and Mr. Rajesh Girdhar, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl. A.G., Punjab. *** Harpreet Singh Brar, J. (Oral) 1. Present appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment of conviction and order on quantum of sentence dated 04.12.2009 passed by learned Judge, Special Court, Muktsar vide which the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as mentioned below: Offence under Section Sentence Fine Sentence in default of payment of fine 15 of NDPS Act Rigorous imprisonment for nine months Rs. 5,000/- Rigorous imprisonment for one month 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the prosecution case are that on 15.03.2005, ASI Avtar Singh was posted at Police Station City Muktsar, he along with other police officials held naka on Abohar Road bypass, Muktsar when at about 04.00 PM, accused-appellant came on a scooter. He was signalled to stop. A plastic bag fell on the ground and some poppy husk was scattered on the ground. One glass tumbler also fell on the ground. On checking, the plastic bag was found to be containing poppy husk. One sample weighing 250 grams was separated from the bulk and remaining on weighment came to be 09.750 kilograms. Separate parcels of the sample as well as remaining bulk of the AJAY GOSWAMI 2025.04.05 12:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-347-SB-2010 (O&M) 2 poppy husk were prepared, which were sealed. FIR(supra) was registered under Sections 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘NDPS Act’). 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 04.12.2009 passed by learned, Judge, Special Court, Muktsar on merits and restricts his prayer to modification of the order on quantum of sentence dated 04.12.2009 to that of sentence already undergone by the appellant as he has already undergone a period of 22 days out of total sentence of 09 months imposed upon him. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the appellant on the ground that learned trial Court has passed a well-reasoned judgment based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record. The appellant was also convicted in two more NDPS cases but he has completed his sentence and as such, the appellant does 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 was convicted for being in possession of 10 kilogram of poppy husk, attracting the offence under Section 15 of NDPS Act, for which no minimum punishment has been prescribed. As per his custody certificate, he has already undergone an actual sentence of 22 days out of total sentence of 09 months, in the instant case. Moreover, learned counsel for the appellant has not assailed the judgment of conviction on merits. Rather, he has restricted his prayer only qua modification of order on quantum of sentence. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Section 15 of NDPS Act, 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. AJAY GOSWAMI 2025.04.05 12:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-347-SB-2010 (O&M) 3 6. In Deo Narain Mandal v. State of UP (2004) 7 SCC 257, a three Judge bench of 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. 7. Further, a two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravada Sasikala v. 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 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 said judgment is based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record. However, the FIR (supra) was lodged on 15.03.2005 and the appellant has been suffering the agony of trial AJAY GOSWAMI 2025.04.05 12:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-347-SB-2010 (O&M) 4 for last more than 20 years. Since his conviction, the appellant has reformed into a law-abiding citizen and intends to live a peaceful life 9. Therefore, in view of the discussion above, the present appeal is disposed of in the following terms:- (i) The judgment dated 04.12.2009 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, Muktsar is upheld. (ii) The order of sentence dated 04.12.2009 is modified to the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 09 months along with fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default mechanism awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by him. 10. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 27.03.2025 Ajay Goswami Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No AJAY GOSWAMI 2025.04.05 12:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document