Punjab-Haryana High Court
Darshan Singh vs State Of Pb on 21 March, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:039215
536 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRA-S-997-SB-2007
Date of decision: 21.03.2025
Darshan Singh ....Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. H.S. Rakhra, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG, Punjab.
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)
1. The prayer in the present appeal is to set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.05.2007 passed by learned Judge, Special Court, Bathinda, whereby, the appellant was convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 15(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter 'NDPS Act'), in the case stemming from FIR No.148 dated 04.11.2003, under Section 15 of the NDPS Act at Police Station Sangat.
2. The appellant was sentenced as mentioned below:
Offence Sentence Sections 15 (b) of the Narcotic Rigorous imprisonment for a period Drugs and Psychotropic of six months and to pay fine of Substances Act, 1985 Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for thirty days.
3. Brief facts of the case are that a police party headed by ASI Gurdas Singh was on patrolling duty and was going from Sangat Mandi to Jassi Bagh Wali after reaching at Bus Stand of Sangat, independent witness, namely, Gurtej Singh associated in the police party. Thereafter, when the police party 1 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 26-03-2025 00:36:02 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:039215 CRA-S-997-SB-2007 -2- reached at distance of half kilometre away from Sangat Kalan on link road to Jassi Bagh Wali, the accused/appellant was spotted coming holding plastic bag on his head and he was apprehended with 05 Kg of Poppy Husk and two samples of 25 grams each were drawn from the bag and then sent to the chemical examiner. Subsequently, FIR (supra) was registered under Section 15 of the NDPS Act.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Court below has fallen into grave error in convicting the appellant, as his guilt has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is contended that there is non- compliance of mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act. The alleged independent witness Gurtej Singh has not been examined and the link evidence is also missing in the present case. He further contends that he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 08.05.2007 on merits and restricts his prayer to modification of the order of quantum of sentence, to that of the sentence already undergone by the appellant, as he has already undergone actual period of 01 month and 25 days in custody and the appellant is convicted in one more case under IPC in which he is on bail.
5. 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.
6. 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 05 kg of Poppy Husk, i.e. intermediate quantity, attracting the offence of Section 15 (b) of the NDPS Act, for which no 2 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 26-03-2025 00:36:03 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:039215 CRA-S-997-SB-2007 -3- minimum punishment has been prescribed. As per his custody certificate, he is not involved in any other case and has already undergone an actual sentence of 01 month and 25 days out of total sentence of 06 months, in the instant case. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Section 15 (b) 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.
7. 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.
8. 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 3 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 26-03-2025 00:36:03 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:039215 CRA-S-997-SB-2007 -4- 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. 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 04.11.2003 and the appellant has been suffering the agony of trial for last more than 21 years. Since his conviction, he has grown into a law-abiding citizen and desires to live a peaceful life.
10. Therefore, in view of the discussion above, the present appeal is disposed of in the following terms:-
(i) The judgment dated 08.05.2007 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, Bathinda, is upheld.
(ii) The order of sentence dated 08.05.2007 is modified to the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 06 months awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by him.
(iii) The sentence of fine of Rs.1,000/- imposed upon the appellant by the learned Court below shall remain intact. The appellant is directed to deposit the said amount in the trial Court within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. In case of default of payment of fine, the appellant shall be liable to be taken into custody and made to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.
11. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
21.03.2025
Neha
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
::: Downloaded on - 26-03-2025 00:36:03 :::