Punjab-Haryana High Court
Avtar Kumar vs State Of Punjab on 24 March, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:039935
CRA-S-2055-SB-2006 (O&M) 1
378 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRA-S-2055-SB-2006 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 24.03.2025
AVTAR KUMAR ...APPELLANT
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB ...RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Mandeep Kaushik and Ms. Anju Sharma Kaushik, Advocates
for the appellant.
Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG Punjab.
***
Harpreet Singh Brar, J. (Oral)
1. Present appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the
judgment of conviction and order on quantum of sentence dated 12.10.2006
passed by learned Special Court, Fatehgarh Sahib vide which the appellant has
been convicted and sentenced as mentioned below:
Offence Sentence Fine Sentence in default of
under Section payment of fine
15 of NDPS Rigorous imprisonment Rs. Rigorous imprisonment
Act for two years 1,000/- for fifteen days
2. Briefly stated the facts of the prosecution case are that on
14.04.2005 at about 3.00 PM police party headed by ASI Darshan Singh of
Police Station Khamanon and other police officials were present in the area of
Mansoorpur on patrolling duty, then the police party noticed a clean shaved
person coming on foot from the side of Mansoorpur carrying a white coloured
plastic jhola on his head. On the basis of suspicion, he was apprehended and
upon asking, his identity was verified. On suspicion, search of the accused-
appellant and his belongings was conducted and on checking the plastic jhola,
held by appellant, poppy husk was found. Two samples each weighing 250
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:039935
grams were separated from the bulk and the remaining poppy husk upon
weighment came to be 14.500 kilograms. Separate parcels of the samples as
well as remaining bulk of the poppy husk were prepared, which were sealed.
FIR(supra) was registered under Sections 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be referred as 'NDPS Act').
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not assailing
the impugned judgment of conviction dated 12.10.2006 passed by learned
Special Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib on merits and restricts his prayer to modification
of the order on quantum of sentence dated 12.10.2006 to that of sentence already
undergone by the appellant as he has already undergone a period of more than
02 months out of total sentence of two years imposed upon him and he is not
involved in any other case.
4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the appellant
on the ground that learned trial Court has passed a well-reasoned judgment
based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record and as such, the
appellant does not deserve any leniency.
5. 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 15 kilogram of poppy husk, attracting the offence
under Section 15 of NDPS Act, for which no minimum punishment has been
prescribed. As per his custody certificate, he is not involved in any other case
and has already undergone an actual sentence of 02 months and 10 days out of
total sentence of two years, in the instant case. Moreover, learned counsel for the
appellant has not assailed the judgment of conviction on merits. Rather, he has
restricted his prayer only qua modification of order on quantum of sentence.
Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Section 15 of NDPS
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:039935
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.
6. In Deo Narain Mandal v. 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, 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.
7. Further, a two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Ravada Sasikala v. 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.
8. A perusal of the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial
Court indicates no perversity in its findings and the said judgment is based on
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:039935
correct appreciation of evidence available on record. However, the FIR (supra)
was lodged on 14.04.2005 and the appellant has been suffering the agony of trial
for last almost 20 years. Since his conviction, he has grown into a law-abiding
citizen and desires to live a peaceful life.
9. Therefore, in view of the discussion above, the present appeal is
disposed of in the following terms:-
(i) The judgment dated 12.10.2006 passed by the learned
Special Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib is upheld.
(ii) The order of sentence dated 12.10.2006 is modified to
the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years
awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period of sentence
already undergone by him.
(iii) Fine of Rs. 1,000/- imposed upon the petitioner shall
remain intact. The petitioner is directed to deposit the amount of
fine in the trial Court within one month from the date of receipt of
certified copy of this order and in case of default of payment of
fine, the petitioner shall be liable to be taken into custody and made
to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
10. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
24.03.2025
Ajay Goswami Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
