CRA-S-3371-SB IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA 810 Jhujar Singh State of Punjab CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present : Mr. Mr. Mr. AMAN CHAUDHARY 1. Challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment/order dated 27.03.2018 & 28.03.2018 whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for payment of the same, to further underg for the offence punishable under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘the Act’). 2. The factual matrix reveals that alongwith other Jalandhar and they apprehended the accused in possession of The requisite samples were drawn and sealed. which, an FIR was registered. SB-2018 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Versus HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY ***** Mr. Piyush Setia, Advocate for Mr. Ashok P. Batra, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Jasjit Singh, DAG, Punjab. ***** AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (Oral) Challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment/order dated 27.03.2018 & 28.03.2018, passed by the learned Special Court, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years alongwith fine of Rs. payment of the same, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for for the offence punishable under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘the Act’). The factual matrix reveals that on police officials were on patrolling duty they apprehended the accused in possession of The requisite samples were drawn and sealed. which, an FIR was registered. - 1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-S-3371-SB-2018 (O&M) Date of decision: 16.09.2025 ....Appellant ...Respondent AMAN CHAUDHARY , Advocate for the appellant. Challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment/order dated , passed by the learned Special Court, Jalandhar whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous years alongwith fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default of o rigorous imprisonment for three months, for the offence punishable under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘the Act’). on 28.11.2013, when SI Piara Singh police officials were on patrolling duty in the area of Mari Harnia, they apprehended the accused in possession of 1 kgs. 400 g. opium. The requisite samples were drawn and sealed. Ruqa was sent, on the basis of (O&M) .09.2025 ....Appellant ...Respondent Challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment/order dated Jalandhar, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous and in default of months, for the offence punishable under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Piara Singh in the area of Mari Harnia, opium. was sent, on the basis of ASHOK KUMAR 2025.09.17 12:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-3371-SB-2018 (O&M) - 2- 3. After the investigation concluded, the police submitted the final report in terms of Section 173 Cr.P.C. The Court, upon finding a prima facie case, proceeded to frame charge under Section 18 of the Act. The accused, however, pleaded not guilty and insisted on trial. 4. 7 witnesses were examined by the prosecution in support of its case, after which the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein the accused denied incriminating evidence, while pleading innocence and alleged false implication. In defence, DW1 Nachatar Singh was examined. 5. The learned trial Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as noticed above. 6. Hence appellant in appeal. 7. The challenge to the conviction is given up by the learned counsel, who now confines his prayer for reduction of sentence to the period of 6 months and 23 days, already undergone by the appellant, on the grounds he belongs to the poor strata of society; first offender; the only bread earner of the family; recovery was non-commercial; having two children, one of marriageable age; not involved in any other case after grant of bail and has been facing the agony of protracted trial since 2013. 8. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the trial Court after evaluating the evidence has rightly convicted the appellant and the sentence awarded to him cannot be said to be excessive, therefore, he prays for the dismissal of the present appeal. He, however, was unable to deny that appellant, during pendency, committed no similar offence. 9. Counsel on either side heard and the record perused. 10. As is discernable from the impugned judgment, PW7-SI Piara Singh ASHOK KUMAR 2025.09.17 12:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-3371-SB-2018 (O&M) - 3- and PW5-ASI Manjit Singh had deposed that the accused-appellant was apprehended and found to be in conscious possession of the alleged contraband. As per Chemical Examiner report Ex.PY, the contents of contraband were found to be ‘Opium’. Thus, the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant and there is no scope for interference in the findings recorded therewith and the conclusion arrived at. As such, his conviction is upheld. 11. On the issue of reduction of sentence to the period already undergone, the judgment in S.K. Sakkar @ Mannan vs. State of West Bengal, (2021) 4 SCC 483, can be referred to, wherein the accused was convicted under Section 20 of the Act and Hon’ble the Supreme Court reduced the sentence of five years to 2 years, 4 months and 16 days, by considering that the occurrence took place in 1997 and he was not a habitual offender, rather a first-time convict. 12. In Satish vs. State of U.P., (2021) 14 SCC 580, Hon’ble the Supreme Court had observed that, “Whilst it is undoubtedly true that society has a right to lead a peaceful and fearless life, without free roaming criminals creating havoc in the lives of ordinary peace loving citizens. But equally strong is the foundation of reformative theory which propounds that a civilised society cannot be achieved only through punitive attitudes and vindictiveness; and that instead public harmony, brotherhood and mutual acceptability ought to be fostered. Thus, first time offenders ought to be liberally accorded a chance to repent their past and look forward to a bright future. [Maru Ram v. Union of India, (1981) 1 SCC 107 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 112]”. 13. Likewise, in Naresh Kumar vs. State of Haryana, CRA-S-796-SB- 2005, decided on 24.02.2023, the sentence of the appellant i.e. 3 years and 6 months, convicted under Section 15 of the Act, was modified to the period ASHOK KUMAR 2025.09.17 12:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-3371-SB-2018 (O&M) - 4- undergone i.e. 8 months and 25 days already, by holding that no useful purpose will be served by sending him to jail after 22 years from the date of incident, in view of the fact that he was only about 28 years old at that time. 14. Whilst adopting a sympathetic approach; the appellant having suffered the vagaries of trial since long; successfully warded off his crime-proneness-an evident learning of a lesson; his socio-economic circumstances, this Court finds mitigating factors apparent. Thus, it would serve the ends of justice to reduce his sentence to the period already undergone, however, keeping the fine intact. 15. The order of sentence dated 28.03.2018 is modified to the aforesaid extent and as such, the present petition stands partly allowed. (AMAN CHAUDHARY) JUDGE 16.09.2025 ashok Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No ASHOK KUMAR 2025.09.17 12:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document