Jagdish Singh vs State Of Pb
2025 Latest Caselaw 3325 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Jagdish Singh vs State Of Pb on 17 March, 2025

                                      Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:036341




401          IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                         AT CHANDIGARH


                                                 Date of decision: 17.03.2025

1.                                                   CRA-S-41-SB-2007


JAGDISH SINGH                                                   ....Appellant
                                     Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB                                                 ...Respondent

2.                                                   CRA-S-351-SB-2007


BINDER SINGH                                                    ....Appellant
                                     Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB                                                 ...Respondent


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

Present:     Mr. H.S. Rakhra, Advocate and
             Ms. Gurvinder Kaur, Advocate
             for the appellant.

             Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG, Punjab.


HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

1. This order of mine shall dispose of both the above mentioned

appeals as both are arising from the same FIR. For the sake of brevity, facts are

borrowed from CRA-S-41-SB-2007 titled as Jagdish Singh Vs. State of Punjab.

2. These appeals have been preferred against the judgment of

conviction and order of sentence dated 12.12.2006 passed by learned Judge,

Special Court, Bathinda whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced

for the offence punishable under Section 15 (b) of the Narcotic Drugs and

Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter 'NDPS Act'), in the case

1 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:036341

stemming from FIR No.95 dated 24.08.2004 at Police Station Sangat, District

Bathinda.

3. The appellants were sentenced as mentioned below:

Offence Sentence Section 15 (b) of the Narcotic Rigorous imprisonment for a period Drugs and Psychotropic of one year each and to pay fine of Substances Act, 1985 Rs.2,500/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months each.

4. Brief facts of the case are that on 24.08.2004, when ASI Shamsher

Singh alongwith other police officials were present at crossing of Sangat and

reached on bridge of drain in the area of village Dunewala, two persons were

seen coming on scooter. On seeing the police party, they both tried to run away

but during that process, scooter stood switched off and one bag lying between

the two persons fell on the ground and its mouth stood open. Due to which,

poppy husk became visible from the bag. On weighing, it came to be 07 kgs.

Hence the FIR (supra) was registered.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Court

below has fallen into grave error in convicting the appellants, as their guilt has

not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is contended that the mandatory

provisions of the NDPS Act have not been followed and the link evidence is

missing. Further, there was no investigation with regard to the source of alleged

recovery and merely, the appellants were found sitting on the bag in a public

place does not prove that the alleged contraband was recovered from the

conscious and exclusive possession of the appellants. Further non-examination

of independent witness is fatal to the case of prosecution. He further contends

that he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 12.12.2006 on

2 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:036341

merits and restricts his prayer to modification of the order on quantum of

sentence, to that of the sentence already undergone by the appellant(s), as they

have already undergone for a period of 1 year and 6 days in custody (Jagdish

Singh) and for a period of six months and three days in custody (Binder Singh)

respectively and are not involved in any other criminal case.

6. 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, they do

not deserve any leniency.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the

record with their able assistance, it transpires that the appellants were convicted

for having in possession 7 kgs of poppy husk attracting the offence under

Section 15 of NDPS Act, for which no minimum punishment has been

prescribed. As per their custody certificate, they are not involved in any other

case and have already undergone an actual sentence of 1 year 6 days (Jagdish

Singh) and 6 months and 3 days (Binder Singh) out of total sentence of one

year each Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Section 15

of NDPS Act, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the interest of

justice, if the sentence awarded to the appellants is reduced to the period

already undergone by them.

8. 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

3 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:036341

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.

9. 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

balance between the efficacy of law and the chances of reformation of the

accused.

10. 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 24.08.2004 and the appellants have been suffering the agony of trial

for last more than more than 20 years. Since their conviction, they have grown

into a law-abiding citizen and desire to live a peaceful life.

11. Therefore, in view of the discussion above, the present appeal is

disposed of in the following terms:-

(i) The judgment dated 12.12.2006 passed by learned Judge, Special Court, Bathinda is upheld.

4 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:036341

(ii) The order of sentence dated 12.12.2006 is modified to the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year each with fine of Rs.2,500/- each along with default mechanism awarded to the appellants is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by them.

12. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand

disposed of.

13. A photocopy of this order be placed on the other connected case.

                                                (HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
                                                      JUDGE
17.03.2025
mahima

               Whether speaking/reasoned        :      Yes/No
               Whether reportable               :      Yes/No




                                       5 of 5