Rajinder Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab
2025 Latest Caselaw 3590 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Rajinder Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab on 24 March, 2025

                                        Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:039973




575          IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                         AT CHANDIGARH

                                                  CRA-S-1283-SB-2007
                                                  Date of decision: 24.03.2025

Rajinder Singh and another                                           ....Appellants
                                       Versus

State of Punjab                                                      ...Respondent


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

Present:     Mr. L.S. Sidhu, 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 dated 04.07.2007 and order of sentence dated 05.07.2007 passed by

learned Special Judge, Ferozepur, 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 'NDPS Act'), in the case

stemming from FIR No.196 dated 01.06.2003, under Section 15 of the NDPS

Act at Police Station Sadar Fazilka.

2. The appellants were sentenced as mentioned below:

Offence Sentence Section 15 (b) of the Narcotic Rigorous imprisonment for a period Drugs and Psychotropic of two years each and to pay fine of Substances Act, 1985 Rs.20,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months each.

3. Brief facts of the case are that on 01.06.2003, ASI Barjinder Singh,

Incharge, Police Post, Arniwala along with HC Sukhwinderpal Singh and other

police officials was on patrolling duty at the bridge of canal minor built on

1 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:039973

Kandhwala Hazarkhan Koharianwali road and they saw the appellants coming

on scooter from the side of village Koharianwali and when ASI Barjinder Singh

gave signal to the scooter to stop, the appellants stopped the scooter at a

distance of 50-60 yards behind the place of nakabandi. The appellants were

apprehended with 17 kg 750 grams of Poppy Husk in the presence of one

Jaspal Singh i.e. the independent witness and two samples of 250 grams each

were drawn from the bag and then the same was sent to the chemical examiner.

Subsequently, FIR (supra) was registered under Section 15 of the NDPS Act.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Court

below has fallen into grave error in convicting the appellants, as their guilt has

not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is contended that there is non-

compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act and the independent witness,

namely, Jaspal Singh has not been examined. Further, the linking evidence is

also missing in the present case and ownership of the alleged scooter has not

been proved by the prosecution. There was also an unexplained delay of 04

days in sending the sample of the alleged contraband to the FSL Laboratory.

He further contends that he is not assailing the impugned judgment of

conviction dated 04.07.2007 on merits and restricts his prayer to modification

of the order of quantum of sentence, to that of the sentence already undergone

by the appellants, as appellant No.1-Rajinder Singh has already undergone a

period of 05 months and 10 days and is not involved in any other criminal case.

Appellant No.2-Sema Singh has already undergone a period of 05 months and

03 days in custody and is involved in one more case in which he is on bail.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the

appellants as the learned Court below has passed a well-reasoned judgment

2 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:039973

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 17 kg 750 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 their custody certificate, appellant

No.1-Rajinder Singh has already undergone a period of 05 months and 10 days

and appellant No.2-Sema Singh has already undergone a period of 05 months

and 03 days out of total sentence of 02 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 appellants is reduced to the period already undergone by them.

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:039973

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 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 01.06.2003 and the appellants have been suffering the agony of trial

for last more than 21 years. Since their conviction, they have grown into a law-

abiding citizen and desire 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 04.07.2007 passed by the learned Special

Judge, Ferozepur, is upheld.

(ii) The order of sentence dated 05.07.2007 is modified to the

extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 02 years with

fine along with default mechanism awarded to the appellants is

reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by them.

4 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:039973

11. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand

disposed of.

                                                (HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
                                                      JUDGE
24.03.2025
Neha


               Whether speaking/reasoned        :      Yes/No
               Whether reportable               :      Yes/No




                                       5 of 5