Punjab-Haryana High Court
Babu Singh vs State Of Pb on 24 March, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:040117
402 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRA-S-47-SB-2007
Date of decision: 24.03.2025
BABU SINGH
...APPELLANT
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB
...RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Rohit Bhardwaj, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG, Punjab.
****
HARPREET SINGH BRAR,
BRAR J. (ORAL)
1. The prayer in the present appeal is to set aside the judgment of
conviction dated 16.11.2006 and order of sentence dated 18.11.2006 passed by
learned Judge, Special Court, Bathinda whereby the appellant was convicted
and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 15
15(b) of the Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as
'NDPS Act'),, in the case stemming from FIR No.
No.80 dated 15.08.2002
registered under Section 15 of NDPS Act at Police Station Dialpura.
2. The appellant was sentenced as mentioned below:
Offence Sentence
Section 15(b)
15 of the Narcotic Rigorous imprisonment for a period
Drugs and Psychotropic of one year and 06 months and to
Substances Act, 1985 pay fine of Rs.
Rs.10,000/- and in default
of payment of fine, to further
undergo imprisonment for six
months.
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:040117
CRA-S-47-SB-2007
3. Brief facts of the case are that on 15.08.2002
15.08.2002, ASI Baldev Singh
along with other police officials was on patrolling and going from village
Dialpura to village Bhai Rupa via Katcha passage. In the meantime, when they
joined an independent witness, namely, Mehar Singh on the culvert of a
cemented water course in the area of village Bhai Rupa, appellant, having a
gunny bag on his head, was seen. On seeing the police, he perplexed and tried
to retreat, but was apprehended on suspicion. Upon search of gunny bag, 25
kgs of Poppy Husk was recovered. Subsequently, FIR (supra) was registered
under Section 15 of the NDPS Act.
Act
4. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that he is not assailing
the impugned judgment of conviction dated 16.11.2006 passed by learned
Judge, Special Court, Bathinda on merits and restricts his prayer to
modification of the order on quantum of sentence dated 18.11.2006 to that of
sentence
nce already undergone by the appellant as he has already undergone a
actual custody period of about 06 months, out of total sentence of one and half
years imposed upon him and he is not involved in any other case
case, as per the
order dated 26.02.2007, passed by this Court.
5. Per contra,
contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the
appellant as the learned Court below has passed a well
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 kgs of poppy husk which falls under
the purview of Section 15 NDPS Act. As per order dated 26.02.2007 passed
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:040117
CRA-S-47-SB-2007
by this Court, he has already undergone a actual custody period of about six
months, out of total sentence of one and half years
years, in the instant case. Since
there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Section 15 NDPS Act, for
the non-commercial
commercial quantity 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
u by him.
7. In Deo Narain Mandal vs. State of U.P. (2004) 7 SCC 257
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
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 determinin
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
ly 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,
1166, has reiterated that the imposition of sentence also
serves a social purpose as it acts as a deterrent by making the ac
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
es 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
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:040117
CRA-S-47-SB-2007
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 15.08.2002 and the appellant has been suffering the
agony of trial for last more than 22 years. Since his conviction, he has grown
into law-abiding
abiding citizen and desires to live a peaceful life.
10. Therefore, in view of the discussion above, present appeal is
disposed of in the following terms:-
terms:
(i) The judgment dated 16.11.2006 passed by the learned Judge,
Special Court, Bathinda is upheld.
(ii) The order of sentence dated 18.11.2006 is modified to the
extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one and half
years and fine of Rs.10,000/- along with default mechanism
awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period of sentence
already undergone by him.
(HARPREET
HARPREET SINGH BRAR
BRAR)
March 24, 2025
5 JUDGE
manisha
(i) Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
(ii) Whether reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
