Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagtar Dass Alias Kaka vs State Of Punjab on 1 April, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:044014
CRA-S-1955-2022(O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
244 CRA-S-1955-2022(O&M)
Date of decision : 01.04.2025
Jagtar Dass alias Kaka ..... Appellant
VERSUS
State of Punjab .............. Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Ms. Ishani Goyal, Advocate, with
Ms. Navjot Kaur, Advocate, &
Mr. Deepak K Bishnoi, Advocate, for
Mr. S. S. Sandhu, Advocate, for
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 13.09.2022 & 15.09.2022
respectively passed by learned Judge, Special Court, Patiala, whereby, the
appellant was convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under
Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
(hereinafter 'NDPS Act'), in the case stemming from FIR No.30 dated
23.03.2018, under Section 18 of the NDPS Act at Police Station Bhadson.
2. The appellant was convicted for keeping in possession 900 grams
of Opium and sentenced as mentioned below:
Offence Sentence
Section 18 of the Narcotic Rigorous imprisonment for a period
Drugs and Psychotropic of 03 years and to pay fine of
Substances Act, 1985 Rs.30,000/- and in default of payment
of fine, to further undergo rigorous
imprisonment for three months.
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:044014
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that he is not assailing the
impugned judgment of conviction dated 13.09.2022 on merits and restricts his
prayer to modification of the order on quantum of sentence, to that of the
sentence already undergone by the appellant, as he has already undergone a
period of 1 year, 4 months and 25 days in custody.
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 and as such, he
does not deserve any leniency. He further submits that appellant is also
involved in three more cases under NDPS Act. However, he could not
controvert the fact that all these cases are triable by Magistrate pertains to
the small quantity.
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 900 grams of Opium, i.e. intermediate
quantity, attracting the offence of Section 18 NDPS Act, for which no
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 1 year, 4 months and 25 days, in the instant case. Since there is
no minimum punishment prescribed under Section 18 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.
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
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:044014
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 FIR (supra) was
lodged on 23.03.2018 and the appellant has been suffering the agony of trial
for last more than 7 years. Since his conviction, he has grown into a law-
abiding citizen and desires to live a peaceful life.
9. Therefore, in view of the discussion above, the present appeal is
disposed of in the following terms:-
(i) The judgment dated 13.09.2022 passed by the learned Judge,
Special Court, Patiala, is upheld.
(ii) The order of sentence dated 15.09.2022 is modified to the
extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 03 years
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:044014
and fine along with default mechanism awarded to the appellant
is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by him.
10. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
01.04.2025
anil
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
