Punjab-Haryana High Court
Babu Ram vs State Of Punjab on 10 March, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033643
CRA-S-629-SB-2007 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
429-2
CRA-S-629-SB-2007 (O&M)
Date of decision: 10.03.2025
Babu Ram
....Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab
....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Ashish Grover, 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 25.01.2007 passed
by learned Judge, Special Court, Bathinda whereby the appellant was
convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 15 of
the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter
'the NDPS Act'), in the case stemming from FIR No.39 dated
10.03.2003, under Section 15(b) of the NDPS Act at Police Station
Sangat.
2. The appellant was sentenced as mentioned below:
Offence Sentence
Section 15(b) of the Narcotic Rigorous imprisonment for a period of
Drugs and Psychotropic 03 years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-
Substances Act, 1985 and in default of payment of fine, to
further undergo rigorous imprisonment
for 05 months.
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033643
3. Brief facts of the case are that on 10.03.2003, a police party
headed by ASI Manoj Kumar was on patrolling duty in a private jeep
and when they reached on the bridge of seepage drain in revenue limits
of village Pathrala, they saw the appellant along with co-accused
travelling on a scooter. The appellant along with co-accused were
apprehended with 32 Kgs of Poppy Husk in the presence of one Ajaib
Singh and one sample of 250 grams was drawn from the bag and then
sent to the chemical examiner for its examination and subsequently, FIR
(supra) was registered under Section 15 of the NDPS Act.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that he is not
assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 25.01.2007 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 05 months and 22 days and is
not involved in any other criminal activity.
5. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the
appellant on the ground that 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 32 kgs of Poppy
Husk, i.e. intermediate quantity, attracting the offence of Section 15 the
NDPS Act, for which no minimum punishment has been prescribed. As
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033643
per his custody certificate, he is not involved in any other case and has
already undergone an actual sentence of 05 months and 22 days out of
total sentence of 03 years, 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
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033643
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.
9. 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.
However, the FIR (supra) was registered on 10.03.2003 and the
appellant has been suffering the agony of trial for the last about 22
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 of conviction dated 25.01.2007 passed by
the learned Judge, Special Court, Bathinda is upheld.
(ii) The order of sentence dated 25.01.2007 is modified to
the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a
period of 03 years and fine of Rs.5,000/- along with default
mechanism awarded to the appellant is reduced to the
period of sentence already undergone by him.
11. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also
stand disposed of.
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033643
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
10.03.2025
yakub
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
5 of 5
