Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bhupinder Singh vs State Of Pb on 8 May, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:063915
CRA-S-1543-SB-2002 -1-
2024:PHHC:063915
102
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRA-S-1543-SB-2002 (O&M)
Date of decision: 08.05.2024
Bhupinder Singh @ Bhinder
... Appellant
Vs.
State of Punjab
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Malkeet Singh, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl. A.G., Punjab.
*******
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)
1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of
conviction dated 07.09.2002 and the order of sentence of even date passed
by learned Judge, Special Court, Ludhiana, in FIR No.232 dated 01.12.2000
under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,
1985 (for short 'NDPS Act'), registered at Police Station Sidhwan Bet,
District Ludhiana.
2. The appellant was convicted and sentenced under Section 15 of
NDPS Act and was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period
of four years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- along with default mechanism.
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:063915
2024:PHHC:063915
3. Brief facts of the case are that on 01.12.2000, ASI Jaswant
Singh along with other police officials, in a private vehicle, was on patrolling
on the bank of canal towards Village Gorsian Makhan and 50 yards behind
the bridge, from the side of Village Gorsian Makhan, a person, carrying a
jute bag on his head, was seen and on seeing the police party, he turned on
his left hand side. On suspicion of having some intoxicant substance in the
jute bag, ASI Jaswant Singh asked the accused to get search of the bag
conducted in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. However,
the accused reposed confidence in him and he recorded statement of the
accused Ex.PA and also conducted search of the jute bag, in which poppy
husk was found. Out of the recovered poppy husk, two samples of 250 grams
were separated and bulk parcel, on weighment was found to be 19 1/2 kgs
and was again put in the same jute bag. Sample parcels and bulk parcels
Ex.P3 were prepared and sealed with the seal 'JS'. ASI Jaswant Singh
prepared the impressions of the seal including the chit Ex.P1 and the case
property was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PB. Thereafter,
ASI Jaswant Singh sent a ruqa Ex.PC to the police station, on the basis of
which, formal FIR Ex.PC/1 was registered by SHO Karnail Singh.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that he is not
assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 07.09.2002 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 total sentence of 07 months and 04 days and is not involved in
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:063915
2024:PHHC:063915
any other criminal activity.
6. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the
appellant, 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.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record with their able assistance.
8. In Deo Narain Mandal Vs. 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, the 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. Further, a two-Judge Bench of 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
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:063915
2024:PHHC:063915
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
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. 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.
10. The FIR in the present case was lodged on 01.12.2000 and the
appellant has been suffering the agony of trial for the last more than 23
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 dated
08.05.2024, filed in the Court today, the appellant is not involved in any
other case and has undergone total sentence of 07 months and 04 days in the
instant case.
11. Accordingly, 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.
12. Consequently, present appeal is disposed of in the following
terms:-
(i) The judgment dated 07.09.2002 passed by learned Judge,
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:063915
2024:PHHC:063915
Special Court, Ludhiana is upheld, however, the order of
sentence dated 07.09.2002 is modified to the extent that the
sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 04 years along with
default mechanism awarded to the appellant is reduced to the
period of sentence already undergone by him.
(ii) The sentence of fine of an amount of Rs.5,000/- imposed upon
the appellant by learned trial Court is increased to Rs.10,000/-.
The appellant is directed to deposit the increased amount of fine
in the learned 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. All the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also
stand disposed of.
[ HARPREET SINGH BRAR ]
08.05.2024 JUDGE
vishnu
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
