CRA-S-951-SB-2012 1 277 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-S-951-SB-2012(O&M) Date of decision:21.04.2025 KULDIP SINGH @ KALI ..Appellant Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present:Mr. Amarjit Singh Virk Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Nitesh Sharma, DAG, Punjab. HARPREET SINGH BRAR , (ORAL). 1. The prayer in the present appeal is to set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.03.2012 passed by learned Judge, Special Court, Patiala whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ‘NDPS Act’), in the case stemming from FIR No.64 dated 28.04.2008 registered under Section 21/61/85 of NDPS Act at Police Station Julkan. 2. The appellant was sentenced for keeping in his possession 55 grams of smack, as mentioned below: Offence Sentence Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-and in default of Poonam 2025.04.28 05:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-951-SB-2012 2 payment of fine, to further undergo RI for 2 months. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 07.03.2012 passed by learned Special Court, Patiala on merits and restricts his prayer to modification of the order on quantum of sentence dated 07.03.2012 to that of sentence already undergone by the appellant. As per the custody certificate, the appellant has undergone a period of 05 months and 22 days and he is not involved in any other case. 4. 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. 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 55 grams of smack, which falls under the purview of Section 21 of NDPS Act. As per the custody certificate, the appellant has undergone a period of 5 months and 22 days out of total sentence of 1 year, in the instant case. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Section 21 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. Poonam 2025.04.28 05:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-951-SB-2012 3 6. 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. 7. 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 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 on correct appreciation of evidence available on record. However, the Poonam 2025.04.28 05:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-951-SB-2012 4 FIR (supra) was lodged on 28.04.2008 and the appellant has been suffering the agony of trial for last about 17 years. Since his conviction, he has grown into law-abiding citizen and desires to live a peaceful life. 9. Therefore, in view of the discussion above, present appeal is disposed of in the following terms:- (i) The judgment dated 07.03.2012 passed by the learned Special Court Patiala is upheld. (ii) The order of sentence dated 07.03.2012 is modified to the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and fine of Rs.1000/- along with default mechanism awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by him. 21.04.2025 (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) Poonam JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No Poonam 2025.04.28 05:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document