Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagtar Singh vs State Of Pb on 7 March, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:032832
390 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRA-S-2330-SB-2006
Date of decision: 07.03.2025
Jagtar Singh alias Kaka ....Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Vijay Lath, Advocate
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 15.11.2006 passed by learned Judge,
Special Court, Rupnagar, whereby, the appellant was convicted and sentenced
for the offence punishable under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter 'NDPS Act'), in the case
stemming from FIR No.100 dated 08.05.2005, under Section 15 of the NDPS
Act at Police Station Sadar Ropar.
2. The appellant was sentenced as mentioned below:
Offence Sentence
Section 15 of the Narcotic Rigorous imprisonment for a period
Drugs and Psychotropic of one year and to pay fine of
Substances Act, 1985 Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment
of fine, to further undergo rigorous
imprisonment for one month.
3. Brief facts of the case are that on 08.05.2005, a police party
headed by ASI Rajinder Singh was on patrolling duty at Nalagarh road and
received a secret information that the accused/appellant deals in poppy husk
and selling the same on the turning of SYL Canal, Makauri Kalan. When the
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:032832
raid was conducted, the appellant was apprehended with 6 Kg of Poppy Husk,
two samples of which were drawn from the bag. The samples of 250 grams
each were then sent to the chemical examiner who confirmed the contents to be
'Poppy Head'. Subsequently, FIR (supra) was registered under Section 15 of
the NDPS Act.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Court
below has fallen into grave error in convicting the appellant, as his guilt has not
been proved beyond reasonable doubt. He further contends that the compliance
of Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act has not been made in the present case.
Moreover, the fact that the appellant was in conscious possession of the
contraband has not been proved on record and no incriminating articles have
been recovered from the house of the appellant. Further, there are major
discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and the charge
framed against the appellant is defective and the appellant has not been
examined properly under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Lastly, he submits that the
appellant has already undergone a period of 29 days in custody and is not
involved in any other criminal case.
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 as such, he does
not deserve any leniency.
6. 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 6 kg of Poppy Husk, i.e. intermediate quantity,
attracting the offence of Section 15 NDPS Act, for which no minimum
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:032832
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 29
days out of total sentence of 01 year, in the instant case. Since there is no
minimum punishment prescribed under Section 15 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.
7. 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 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.
8. 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
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:032832
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. However, the FIR (supra) was
lodged on 08.05.2005 and the appellant has been suffering the agony of trial for
last about 20 years. Since his conviction, he has grown into a law-abiding
citizen and desires to live a peaceful life.
10. Therefore, in view of the discussion above, the present appeal is
disposed of in the following terms:-
(i) The judgment dated 15.11.2006 passed by the learned Judge,
Special Court, Rupnagar, is upheld.
(ii) The order of sentence dated 15.11.2006 is modified to the
extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 01 year
along with default mechanism awarded to the appellant is reduced
to the period of sentence already undergone by him.
(iii) The sentence of fine of Rs.1000/- imposed upon the
appellant by the learned Court below shall remain intact. The
appellant is directed to deposit the said amount in the trial Court
within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this
order. 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.
11. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
07.03.2025
Neha
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
