Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kala Singh vs State Of Punjab on 6 March, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:032222
CRA-S-342-SB-2006 (O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
345 CRA-S-342-SB-2006 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 06.03.2025
KALA SINGH
...Appellant
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Sandeep Chopra, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG, Punjab.
***
Harpreet Singh Brar, J. (Oral)
1. Present appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.02.2006/08.02.2006
passed by learned Special Judge, Ferozepur vide which the appellant has been
convicted under Section 15(b) of NDPS Act and sentenced as mentioned below:
Offence under Sentence Fine Sentence in default of
Section payment of fine
15(b) of NDPS Rigorous Rs. 4,000/- Rigorous imprisonment
Act imprisonment for for six months
two years
2. Learned counsel for the appellant inter alia contends that the independent
witness was joined in the investigation but he was not examined by the prosecu-
tion. Further, the seal after use was not handed over to the independent witness.
There are several contradictions in the testimonies of the official witnesses. The
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:032222
CRA-S-342-SB-2006 (O&M)
alleged recovery was made on 20.06.2003 whereas the representative sample
was sent to the office of chemical examiner on 25.06.2003. Learned counsel for
the appellant further contends that he is not assailing the impugned judgment of
conviction dated 07.02.2006 passed by learned Special Judge, Ferozepur on
merits and restricts his prayer to modification of the order on quantum of
sentence dated 08.02.2006 to that of sentence already undergone by the
appellant as he has already undergone a period of 04 months and 11 days and
not involved in any other case.
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 record
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 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 in-
cludes 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 whimsically. After
assessing all relevant factors, proper sentence should be awarded bearing in
mind the principle of proportionality to ensure the sentence is neither excess-
ively harsh nor does it come across as lenient.
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:032222
CRA-S-342-SB-2006 (O&M)
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 im-
position of sentence also serves a social purpose as it acts as a deterrent by mak-
ing 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.
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 20.06.2003 and the
appellant has been suffering the agony of trial since the last about 22 years. As
per the custody certificate, the appellant has undergone total sentence of 04
months and 11 days out of rigorous sentence of two years awarded to him and
he is not involved in any other case as per the custody certificate.
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 especially when minimum punishment is not
provided for the alleged offence.
10. Consequently, the present petition is disposed of in the following
terms:-
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:032222
CRA-S-342-SB-2006 (O&M)
(i) The judgment of conviction dated 07.02.2006 passed by the
learned Special Judge, Ferozepur is upheld, however, the order of
sentence dated 08.02.2006 is modified to the extent that the sentence of
rigorous imprisonment for two years awarded to the appellant is reduced
to the period of sentence already undergone by him.
(ii) Fine of Rs. 4,000/- imposed upon the appellant is enhanced
to Rs. 10,000/-. 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)
JUDGE
06.03.2025
P.Bhatt
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
