Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurtej Singh vs State Of Punjab on 24 March, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:039925
CRA-S No.1425-SB-2007 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
599
CRA-S No.1425-SB-2007 (O&M)
Date of decision: 24.03.2025
Gurtej Singh
....Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab
....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Sukhdeep Singh Chhatwal, Advocate (Amicus Curiae)
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 12.07.2007 passed
by learned Judge, Special Court, Mansa whereby the appellant was
convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 15 of
the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter
'the NDPS Act'), in the case stemming from FIR No.106 dated
04.09.2002 registered under Section 15 of the NDPS Act at Police
Station Sardulgarh.
2. The appellant was sentenced as mentioned below:
Offence Sentence
Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs Rigorous imprisonment for a period of
and Psychotropic Substances Act, 03 months and to pay fine of
1985 Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment
of fine, to further undergo rigorous
imprisonment for 01 month.
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:039925
3. Brief facts of the case are that on 04.09.2002, a police party
headed by ASI Gurtej Singh on the basis of suspicion, apprehended the
accused/appellant with 21 Kgs of Poppy Husk and subsequently, FIR
(supra) was registered under Section 15 of the NDPS Act.
4. Learned amicus curiae, inter alia, contends that the
prosecution has miserably failed to prove the conscious possession of
the alleged contraband upon the appellant. Further the offer given to the
appellant was defective one and as such, there is a complete non-
compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. Further, there was also an
unexplained delay of 11 days in sending the representative sample of the
alleged contraband to the FSL, which is fatal for the case set up by the
prosecution. He further contends that Mr. Gurbachan Singh was joined
as an independent witness and his testimony clearly indicates that the
prosecution case is highly improbable as the independent witness was
joined prior to chance recovery. He further submits that the appellant
has been falsely implicated in the present case at the behest of his
competitor, who was competing with the appellant for the post of
Numberdar. Lastly, he submits that the appellant has already undergone
a period of 02 months and 24 days in custody and is not involved in any
other criminal case.
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, the appellant does not deserve any leniency.
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:039925
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 21 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, he is not involved in any other case and has
already undergone an actual sentence of 02 months and 24 days out of
total sentence of 03 months, 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.
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:039925
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 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 Court below indicates no perversity in its findings and the same
is based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record.
However, the FIR (supra) was registered on 04.09.2002 and the
appellant has been suffering the agony of trial for the last more than 22
23 years. Since his conviction, the appellant 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 of conviction dated 12.07.2007 passed
by the learned Judge, Special Court, Mansa is upheld.
(ii) The order of sentence dated 12.07.2007 is modified to
the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for
a period of 03 months and fine of Rs.2,000/- along with
default mechanism awarded to the appellant is reduced to
the period of sentence already undergone by him.
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:039925
11. The High Court Legal Services Authority is directed to pay
remuneration to the learned Amicus Curiae as per rules.
12. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also
stand disposed of.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
24.03.2025
yakub
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
5 of 5
