Punjab-Haryana High Court
Balbir Singh vs State Of Punjab on 20 March, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:038431
CRA-S-1328-SB-2007 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
584
CRA-S-1328-SB-2007 (O&M)
Date of decision: 20.03.2025
Balbir Singh
....Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab
....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Ms. Roopse Sharma, Advocate
for Mr. L.S. Sidhu, 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 14.06.2007 passed
by learned Special Judge, Moga whereby the appellant was convicted
and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 15(b) of the
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter 'the
NDPS Act'), in the case stemming from FIR No.153 dated 06.12.2003
registered under Section 15 of the NDPS Act at Police Station Kot Ise
Khan, District Moga.
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 03 months.
3. Brief facts of the case are that on 06.12.2003, ASI
Chamkaur Singh along with HC Piara Singh and other police officials
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:038431
were on patrolling duty and present at the bridge of seepage canal
situated in the area of village Mastewala, they saw the appellant coming
from the western side of the berm of the canal, carrying a gunny bag on
his head. On the basis of suspicion, the appellant was apprehended and
recovery of 25.250 Kgs of Poppy Husk was effected from him.
Subsequently, FIR (supra) was registered under Section 15 of the NDPS
Act.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that she is not
assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 14.06.2007 on
merits and restricts her prayer only 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 07 months and 11
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 25.250 kgs of Poppy
Husk, i.e. intermediate quantity, attracting the offence of Section 15 of
the NDPS Act, for which no minimum punishment has been prescribed.
As per custody certificate, the appellant is not involved in any other
case and has already undergone an actual sentence of 07 months and 11
days out of total sentence of 03 years, in the instant case. Since there is
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:038431
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 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
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:038431
committed and conduct of the accused to strike a balance between the
efficacy of law and the chances of reformation of the accused.
8. 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
counsel for the appellant has not assailed the judgment of conviction on
merits, rather she has restricted her prayer only qua modification of
quantum of sentence to that of the sentence already undergone by the
appellant.
9. The FIR in the present case was registered on 06.12.2003
and the appellant has been suffering the agony of trial since the last
more than 21 years. Since his conviction, the appellant has grown into a
law-abiding citizen and desires to live a peaceful life.
10. Consequently, the present appeal is disposed of in the
following terms:-
(i) The judgment of conviction dated 14.06.2007 passed
by the learned Special Judge, Moga is upheld.
(ii) The order of sentence dated 14.06.2007 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. All the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall
also stand disposed of.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
20.03.2025 JUDGE
yakub Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
4 of 4
