Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sheer vs St Of Pb on 10 March, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033651
CRA-S-514-SB-2007 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
456
CRA-S-514-SB-2007 (O&M)
Date of decision: 10.03.2025
Sheer
....Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab
....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. P.S. Sekhon, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG, Punjab.
HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)
1. The instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment
dated 03.03.2007 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, Barnala at
Sangrur, vide which the appellant was convicted under Section 15 of the
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short 'the
NDPS Act') in FIR No.21 dated 30.03.2003 registered under Section 15
of the NDPS Act at Police Station GRP Sangrur and was sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 02 years and to pay a
fine of Rs.20,000/- along with default mechanism.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 30.03.2003, ASI Nand
Singh along with other police party was present at Platform No.1 at
Railway Station, Barnala, and they saw one young lady coming from
the back side of Ram Bagh, holding one blue coloured bag in her right
hand. On seeing the police party, she became perplexed and thereafter,
on the basis of suspicion, she was apprehended and recovery of 05 Kgs.
Poppy Husk was effected from her. Two sample of 250 gms. each were
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033651
separately drawn out of the same and a parcel was prepared.
Subsequently, the FIR (supra) was registered against the
accused/appellant.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that he is not
assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 03.03.2007 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 she has already undergone a period of 01 month and 19 days, and is
not involved in any other criminal activity.
4. 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, she does not deserve any leniency.
5. 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 05 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
per custody certificate, she is not involved in any other case and has
already undergone an actual sentence of 01 month and 19 days out of
total sentence of 02 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 her.
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033651
6. 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
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.
7. 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. Learned
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033651
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 30.03.2003 and
the appellant has been suffering the agony of trial since the last 22
years. Since her conviction, the appellant has grown into a law-abiding
citizen and desires to live a peaceful life.
9. Consequently, the present appeal is disposed of in the
following terms:-
(i) The judgment dated 03.03.2007 passed by the learned
Judge, Special Court, Barnala at Sangrur, is upheld,
however, the order of sentence of even date, is modified to
the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for
a period of 02 years and fine of Rs.20,000/- along with
default mechanism awarded to the appellant is reduced to
the period of sentence already undergone by her.
10. All the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall
also stand disposed of.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
10.03.2025
yakub Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
4 of 4
