Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manjit Singh vs State Of Punjab on 18 March, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:036829
493 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRA-S-715-SB-2007
Date of decision: 18.03.2025
MANJIT SINGH ALIAS MUKKA
...APPELLANT
V/S
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,
BRAR J. (ORAL)
1. The prayer in the present appeal is to set aside the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 19.03.2007 passed by learned Judge,
Special Court, Bathinda, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced
for the offence punishable under Section 18(C)
(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the 'NDPS
Act'), in the case stemming from FIR No.52
No. dated 03.05.2004, under Section
18 of the NDPS Act at Police Station Sangat.
2. The appellant was sentenced as mentioned below:
Offence Sentence
Section 18
8(C) of the Narcotic Rigorous imprisonment for a period
Drugs and Psychotropic of nine months and to pay fine of
Substances Act, 1985 Rs.2,500/
00/- and in default of payment
of fine, to further undergo rigorous
imprisonment
prisonment for three months.
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:036829
CRA-S-715-SB
3. Brief facts of the case are that on 03.05.2004, a police party
headed by SHO Balwinder Singh was holding picket in revenue limits of
village Gurthari on road leading to Refinery, they saw a bus was coming from
the side of Dabwali. From the bus, the passengers were alighted. The accused
tried to run away but was apprehended, while holding carry bag in his right
hand. Upon search of bag, 500 grams of Opium wrapped in glazed paper was
recovered from him. Subsequently, FIR (supra) was registered under Section
15 of the NDPS Act.
Act
4. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that he is not assailing
the impugned judgment of conviction dated 19.03.2007 passed by learned
Judge, Special Court, Bathinda on merits and restricts his prayer to
modification of the order on quantum of sentence of even date i.e. 19.03.2007
to that
at of sentence already undergone by the appellant as he has already
undergone a total custody period of 02 months and 07 days and he is not
involved in any other case.
5. Per contra,
contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the
appellant as the learned
learned Court below has passed a well
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,
assistance, it transpires that the appellant was
convicted for being in possession of 500 grams of Opium, which falls under
the purview of Section 18
1 NDPS Act. As per custody certificate, the appellant
is not involved in any other case and has already undergone an actual sentence
of 02 months and 07 days out of total sentence of 09 months, in the instant
case. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Section 118
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:036829
CRA-S-715-SB
NDPS Act, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the interest of
justice, if thee 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
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 iis 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
inciple 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,
1166, has reiterated that the imposition of sentence aalso
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 ch
chances of reformation of the
accused.
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:036829
CRA-S-715-SB
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 03.05.2004 and the appellant has been suffering the
agony of trial for last about 21 years. Since his conviction, he has grown into a
law-abiding
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:-
terms:
(i) The judgment dated 19.03.2007 passed by the learned Judge,
Special Court,
Court Bathinda is upheld.
(ii) The order of sentence dated 19.03.2007 is modified to the
extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 09 months
and a fine of Rs.2,500/-
Rs.2,500/ along with default mechanism awarded to
the appellant is reduced to the period of sentence already
undergone by him.
(HARPREET
HARPREET SINGH BRAR
BRAR)
March 18, 2025
5 JUDGE
manisha
(i) Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
(ii) Whether reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
