Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manoj vs State Of Haryana on 12 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036312
CRA-S-93-2024 (O&M) -1- 2024:PHHC:036312
216 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-959-2024 in/and
CRA-S-93-2024 (O&M)
Date of decision: 12.03.2024
Manoj ....Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Parveen Sharma, Advocate
for the appellant
Ms. Geeta Sharma, DAG Haryana
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.
CRM-959-2024
At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant wishes to withdraw
the application regarding suspension of sentence with a request to take up the
main case for hearing and restricts his prayer to quantum of sentence.
Dismissed as withdrawn.
CRA-S-93-2024
1. The instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated
19.12.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonipat in FIR No. 57
dated 16.10.2019 filed under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psy-
chotropic Substances, 1985 (hereinafter 'NDPS Act') registered at Police Sta-
tion HSIIDC, Bari, District Sonipat whereby the appellant was convicted and
sentenced as under:
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036312
CRA-S-93-2024 (O&M) -2- 2024:PHHC:036312
Offence Sentence
Section 15B of the NDPS Rigorous imprisonment of 2 years and a fine of
Act Rs. 10,000/-, in default of which simple
imprisonment of 2 months
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
2. The facts, in brief, are that on 16.10.2019, a police party headed by
ASI Hari Parkash was patrolling the area of Bega Road, Sahapur turn when
they received a secret information regarding the appellant and co-accused De-
vender indulging in sale of contraband. The police party reached the spot in half
an hour and found two persons holding plastic bags, coming on foot from Ram
Nagar side. They were apprehended on suspicion and a search was conducted in
the presence of DSP Sandeep Kumar. In furtherance of the same, 4 kg 340g
chura was recovered from the bag carried by the appellant.
3. On finding a prima facie case, charge under Section 15 of NDPS
Act was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed
trial. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses to prove its case. All the incrimin-
ating evidence was put to the appellant-accused and in his statement recorded
under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. wherein he denied all evidence and pleaded
false implication but did not lead any evidence in his defence.
4. On assessing all the material available on record, the appellant was
convicted by the learned trial Court vide judgment dated judgment dated
19.12.2023. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant preferred the instant appeal.
CONTENTIONS
5. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that he is not assailing
the impugned judgment of conviction dated judgment dated 19.12.2023 on mer-
its and restricts his prayer to modification of the order of quantum of sentence
as the appellant has already undergone 3 months 22 days of actual custody.
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036312
CRA-S-93-2024 (O&M) -3- 2024:PHHC:036312
6. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the appel-
lant as the learned trial Court has passed a well-reasoned judgment based on
correct appreciation of evidence available on record and as such, he does not
deserve any leniency.
OBSERVATIONS AND ANALYSIS
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record with their able assistance.
8. In Deo Narain Mandal v. State 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 max-
imum 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 com-
mitted, age of the accused, should be considered while determining the
quantum of sentence and this discretion is not to be used arbitrarily or whimsic-
ally. 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. 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 re-
gard 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
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036312
CRA-S-93-2024 (O&M) -4- 2024:PHHC:036312
committed and the conduct of the accused to strike a balance between the effic-
acy of law and the chances of reformation of the accused.
9. As per the custody certificate produced by the learned State coun-
sel, details of custody period of the appellant are tabulated as under:-
Sr Particulars Period Duration
No.
1. Custody under trial 17.10.2019 to 29 days
14.11.2019
2. Custody after conviction 19.12.2023 to 2 months 23 days
11.03.2024
3. Interim Bail - -
4. Actual custody period after 3 months 22 days
conviction
5. Actual undergone period 3 months 22 days
6. Earned remission -
7. Total sentence including 3 months 22 days
remission
10. A perusal of the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial
Court indicates no perversity in their finding and the same are based on correct
appreciation of evidence available on record. Moreover, learned counsel for the
appellant has not assailed the judgment of conviction on merits, rather he has
restricted his prayer only qua quantum of sentence.
CONCLUSION
11. The FIR in the present case was lodged on 16.10.2019 and the ap-
pellant has been suffering the agony of trial since the last about 5 years. Since
his conviction, the appellant has grown into a law-abiding citizen and desires to
live a peaceful life. As per his custody certificate, out of the total sentence of 2
years in this case, he is not involved in any other criminal case and has under-
gone actual sentence of 3 months 22 days. Accordingly, this Court is of the
opinion that it would be in the interest of justice, if the sentence of rigorous im-
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036312
CRA-S-93-2024 (O&M) -5- 2024:PHHC:036312
prisonment of 2 years awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period already
undergone by him.
12. Consequently, the present appeal is disposed of in the following
terms:-
(i) The judgment dated 19.12.2023 passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Sonipat convicting the appel-
lant is upheld, however, the order of sentence is modified
to the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment
for 2 years along with default mechanism awarded to the
appellant is reduced to the period of sentence already un-
dergone by him.
(ii) The sentence of fine of an amount of Rs. 10,000/-
imposed upon the appellant by the trial Court is increased
to Rs.20,000/-. The appellant is directed to deposit the in-
creased amount of fine in the trial Court within one month
from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and
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.
13. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand dis-
posed of.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
12.03.2024
Neha
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036312
5 of 5
