Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satranjan Singh vs State Of Pb on 17 March, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:036198
CRA-S-2273-SB-2006 1
388 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRA-S-2273-SB-2006
Date of decision: 17.03.2025
Satranjan Singh @ Sonu
....Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Balbir Singh Jaswal, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG, Punjab.
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)
1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction
and order on quantum of sentence dated 14.11.2006 passed by learned Judge,
Special Court, Amritsar whereby, the appellant was convicted and sentenced for
the offence punishable under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter 'NDPS Act'), in the case
stemming from FIR No.212 dated 21.09.2004 Police Station, Majitha, Amritsar
under Section 22/61/85 of NDPS Act.
2. The appellant was sentenced as mentioned below:
Offence Sentence
Section 22 of the Narcotic Rigorous imprisonment for a period
Drugs and Psychotropic of four months and to pay fine of
Substances Act, 1985 Rs.100/- and in default of payment of
fine, to further undergo rigorous
imprisonment for seven days.
3. Brief facts of the case are that on 21.09.2004 Inspector Nirmaljit
Singh alongwith some other police officials were on patrolling and when they
reached near village Bal Kalan, they saw the accused coming out from a
medical store holding a black coloured polythene envelope in his right hand
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:036198
and on seeing the police party he started running. On suspicion he was
apprehended, his identify was verified. From his search, a polythene bag
containing 175 capsules of Proxyvon, 200 capsules of Parvon spas, 120
capsules of Parvon Spas and 140 tablets of Lomotil were recovered. Hence the
FIR (supra) was registered.
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. It is contended that the mandatory
provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act have not been followed and the link
evidence is not reliable. Further no independent witness was joined and there
are inherent improbabilities in the case of the prosecution. He further contends
that he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 14.11.2006 on
merits and restricts his prayer to 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 01 month and 18 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 having in possession 175 capsules of Proxyvon, 200 capsules of Parvon
spas, 120 capsules of Parvon Spas and 140 tablets of Lomotil attracting the
offences under Section 22 of NDPS Act, for which no minimum punishment
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:036198
has been prescribed. As per his custody certificate, he is not involved in any
other case and has already undergone an actual sentence of 1 month and 18
days out of total sentence of 4 months, in the instant case. Since there is no
minimum punishment prescribed under Section 22 of 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:036198
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 21.09.2004 and the appellant has been suffering the agony of trial for
last more than more than 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 14.11.2006 passed by Judge, Special Court,
Amritsar is upheld.
(ii) The order of sentence dated 14.11.2006 is modified to the
extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 04 months
awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period of sentence
already undergone by him.
(iii) Fine of Rs.100/- imposed upon the appellant shall remain
intact. 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 seven days.
11. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
17.03.2025
mahima
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
