Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sunil vs State Of Haryana on 15 February, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:021964
CRA-S No.2428-SB of 2011(O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
222
CRA-S No. 2428-SB of 2011 (O&M)
Date of decision: 15.02.2025
Sunil
....Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana
....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Sandeep Thakan, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Ramesh Kumar Ambavta, AAG, Haryana.
HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)
1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and
order of sentence dated 07.09.2011 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, vide which the appellant was convicted under
Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 (in short 'the NDPS Act') and sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 04 years and to pay of
fine Rs.50,000/- along with default mechanism, in FIR No.105 dated
11.12.2007 registered under Section 20 of the NDPS Act, at Police
Station Bound-Kalan, Charkhi Dadri.
2. In brief, the prosecution's version is that on 11.12.2007 at
about 13:15 hours, Inspector Dharampal, along with ASI Attar Singh,
HC Hari Ballabh, HC Umed Singh, and EHC Suresh Kumar, was
present in a government vehicle bearing registration No.HR-61-4855,
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:021964
which was driven by EHC Krishan Kumar No.942 while on patrol and
crime detection duty. As the police party was traveling from village
Manheru to village Kasni, near the brick kiln of Ranbir, Ex-Sarpanch of
village Manheru, one Babulal son of Itbari, approached them. While
Inspector Dharampal was speaking to Babulal, the accused was spotted
approaching on the road. Upon seeing the police party, the accused
abruptly turned around, raising suspicion, and was apprehended. A
notice under Section 52 of the NDPS Act was served upon the accused,
informing him of his right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a
Magistrate. The accused expressed trust in the police party and
consented for his search. During the search, a polythene packet
containing Charas was found from the right pocket of his shirt. Two
samples of Charas, each weighing 10 grams, were separated, while the
remaining Charas was found to be weighed 310 grams. The samples and
the remaining Charas were placed in separate plastic jars, properly
sealed with the seal of 'DP', and the seal after use was handed over to
ASI Attar Singh. A written intimation was sent to the Police Station
through EHC Suresh Kumar No.845 for the registration of the case,
following which the FIR (supra) was registered and the accused was
arrested.
3. Thereafter, the appellant was convicted and sentenced vide
judgement of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.09.2011 by the
learned trial Court.
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:021964
4. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that he is not
assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 07.09.2011 on
merits and restricts his prayer qua 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 01 year, 01 month and 02 days
and is not involved in any other criminal activity.
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
and as such, he does not deserve any leniency.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record with their able assistance.
7. 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
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:021964
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
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.
8. A perusal of the judgment of conviction passed by the
learned Court below indicates no perversity in its findings and the same
is based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record.
Learned counsel for the appellant has not assailed the judgment of
conviction on merits, rather he has restricted his prayer only qua
modification of quantum of sentence.
9. The FIR in the present case was lodged on 11.12.2007 and
the appellant has been suffering the agony of trial since the last more
than 17 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 13.02.2025, the appellant is not involved in any other
case and has undergone total sentence of 01 year, 01 month and 02
days, out of total sentence of 04 years in the instant case.
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:021964
10. 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.
11. Consequently, the present appeal is disposed of in the
following terms:-
(i) The judgment of conviction dated 07.09.2011 passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, is
upheld, however, the order of sentence of even date, 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.50,000/- imposed
upon the appellant by the learned Court below is reduced
to Rs.10,000/-. The appellant is directed to deposit the
amount of fine, if not paid, before the learned Court
below within a period of 01 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 simple
imprisonment for 02 months.
12. All the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall
also stand disposed of.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
15.02.2025
yakub Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
5 of 5
