Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jasvir Singh vs State Of Punjab on 5 March, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:031649
202 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
CHANDIGARH
CRA-S-1168-SB-2010 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 05.03.2025
JASVIR SINGH
...Appellant
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Nitesh Sharma, DAG Punjab.
****
HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)
1. Present appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the
judgment of conviction and order on quantum of sentence dated 04.03.2010
passed by learned Judge, Special Court, Muktsar vide which the appellant has
been convicted under Section 15 of NDPS Act and sentenced as mentioned
below:
Offence Sentence Fine Sentence in default
under of payment of fine
Section
15 of NDPS Rigorous Rs. 40,000/- Rigorous
Act imprisonment imprisonment for
for four years six months
2. Learned counsel for the appellant inter alia contends that there is
a delay of 20 days in sending the representive sample for forensic examina-
tion and the Investigating Officer and complainant are the same person and
during the course of investigation, no independent witness was joined. There
are other material contradictions and shortcomings in the testimonies of the
official witnesses. Learned Counsel further submits that he is not assailing the
impugned judgment of conviction dated 04.03.2010 passed by learned Judge,
Special Court, Muktsar on merits and restricts his
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:031649
CRA-S-1168-SB-2010 (O&M) -2-
prayer to modification of the order on quantum of sentence dated 04.03.2010
to that of sentence already undergone by the appellant as he has already un-
dergone a period of 02 years and 09 days out of total sentence of four years
imposed upon him.
3. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the
appellant on the ground that learned trial Court has passed a well-reasoned
judgment based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record and as
such, the appellant does not deserve any leniency.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the re-
cord with their able assistance.
5. 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
maximum term is prescribed by the statute with regard to the period of sen-
tence, 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 determ-
ining 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 sen-
tence is neither excessively harsh nor does it come across as lenient.
6. 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
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:031649
CRA-S-1168-SB-2010 (O&M) -3-
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 eval-
uating 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 re-
formation of the accused.
7. A perusal of the judgment of conviction passed by the learned
trial Court indicates no perversity in its findings and the said judgment 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 modification of
quantum of sentence.
8. The FIR in the present case was lodged on 16.02.2003 and the
appellant has been suffering the agony of trial since the last more than 22
years. As per the custody certificate, the appellant has undergone total
sentence of 02 years and 09 days out of rigorous sentence of four years
awarded to him.
9. 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.
10. Consequently, the present appeal is disposed of in the following
terms:-
(i) The judgment of conviction dated 04.03.2010 passed by
the learned Judge, Special Court, Muktsar is upheld, however, the
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:031649
CRA-S-1168-SB-2010 (O&M) -4-
order of sentence dated 04.03.2010 is modified to the extent that the
sentence of rigorous imprisonment for four years awarded to the
appellant is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by
him.
(ii) Fine of Rs. 40,000/- imposed upon the appellant shall re-
main intact. The appellant is directed to deposit the 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
simple imprisonment for one month.
11. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
05.03.2025 JUDGE
Ajay Goswami
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
