Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kikkar Singh vs State Of Pb on 20 March, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:038646
545 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRA-S-1054-SB-2007
Date of decision: 20.03.2025
Kikkar Singh ....Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Sant Pal Singh 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 14.05.2007 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 'NDPS Act'), in the case
stemming from FIR No.121 dated 31.08.2002, 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
Drugs and Psychotropic of three years and to pay fine of
Substances Act, 1985 Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment
of fine, to further undergo rigorous
imprisonment for three months.
3. Brief facts of the case are that on 31.08.2002, a police party
including SI/SHO Kirpal Singh and ASI Harjit Singh was on patrolling duty
and when they reached near bridge of canal on a link road leading from village
Galoti to Khosa Kotla, they saw the appellant carrying a bag on his head and on
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:038646
the basis of suspicion, he was nabbed. In the meanwhile, private witness,
namely, Sewak Singh, also arrived there. The accused/appellant was
apprehended with 30 Kg 250 grams of Poppy Husk and sample of 250 grams
was drawn from the bag and then the same was sent to the chemical analyst.
Subsequently, FIR (supra) was registered under Section 15 of the NDPS Act.
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 there is violation of
Section 57 of the NDPS Act and the linking evidence is also missing. Further,
there was also an unexplained delay of 09 days in sending the sample of the
alleged contraband to the FSL. The alleged independent witness Sewak Singh
has not been examined and that there are major discrepancies in the statements
of the witnesses who have been examined by the prosecution. He further
contends that he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated
14.05.2007 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 total sentence of 07 months and 11 days in custody.
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
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:038646
for being in possession of 30 kg 250 grams of Poppy Husk, i.e. intermediate
quantity, attracting the offence of Section 15 NDPS Act, for which no minimum
punishment has been prescribed. As per his custody certificate, he has already
undergone total sentence of 07 months and 11 days out of total sentence of 03
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 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
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:038646
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.
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 31.08.2002 and the appellant has been suffering the agony of trial for
last more than 22 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 14.05.2007 passed by the learned Special
Judge, Moga, is upheld.
(ii) The order of sentence dated 14.05.2007 is modified to the
extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 03 years with
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. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
20.03.2025
Neha
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
