Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurrlal Singh And Anr vs State Of Pb on 21 March, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:039126
CRA-S-958-SB-2007 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
528
CRA-S-958-SB-2007 (O&M)
Date of decision: 21.03.2025
Gurlal Singh and another
....Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab
....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate
for the appellants.
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 01.05.2007 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 'the NDPS Act'), in the case stemming from FIR No.90
dated 27.08.2003 registered under Section 15 of the NDPS Act at Police
Station Raman.
2. The appellants were sentenced as mentioned below:
Offence Sentence
Section 15(b) of the Narcotic Rigorous imprisonment for a period of
Drugs and Psychotropic 01 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 10 days
each.
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:039126
3. Brief facts of the case are that on 27.08.2003, a police party
headed by ASI Sandeep Singh on the basis of suspicion, apprehended
the accused/appellants with 15.25 Kgs of Poppy Husk and subsequently,
FIR (supra) was registered under Section 15 of the NDPS Act.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that he is not
assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 01.05.2007 on
merits and restricts his prayer only qua modification of the order on
quantum of sentence, to that of the sentence already undergone by the
appellants, as appellant No.1 - Gurlal Singh has already undergone 02
months and 08 days and appellant No.2 - Pargat Singh has undergone
about 4½ months as on 22.05.2007 and they are not involved in any
other criminal activity.
5. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the
appellants 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, they do 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
appellants were convicted for being in possession of 15.25 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 the order dated 29.05.2007, both the appellants are not involved
in any other case and have already undergone an actual sentence of 02
months and 08 days and about 4½ months, respectively out of total
sentence of 01 year each, in the instant case. Since there is no minimum
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:039126
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 appellants is reduced to the period already undergone by
them.
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:039126
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 appellants has not assailed the judgment of conviction
on merits, rather he has restricted his prayer only qua modification of
quantum of sentence.
9. The FIR in the present case was registered on 27.08.2003
and the appellants have been suffering the agony of trial since the last
more than 21 years. Since their conviction, the appellants have grown
into a law-abiding citizen and desire to live a peaceful life.
10. Consequently, the present appeal is disposed of in the
following terms:-
(i) The judgment of conviction dated 01.05.2007 passed
by the learned Judge, Special Court, Bathinda is upheld.
(ii) The order of sentence dated 01.05.2007 is modified to
the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for
a period of 01 year each and Rs.2,500/- each along with
default mechanism awarded to the appellants is reduced
to the period of sentence already undergone by them.
11. All the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall
also stand disposed of.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
21.03.2025
yakub Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
4 of 4
