Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surjit Singh vs State Of Punjab on 24 March, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:039982
585 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRA-S-1338-SB-2007
Date of decision: 24.03.2025
Surjit Singh ....Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Ms. Vidushi Kumar, Advocate
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 13.07.2007 passed by learned Judge,
Special Court, Rupnagar, whereby, the appellant was convicted and sentenced
for the offence punishable under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter 'NDPS Act'), in the case
stemming from FIR No.52 dated 04.03.2004, under Section 15 of the NDPS
Act at Police Station Kharar.
2. The appellant was sentenced as mentioned below:
Offence Sentence
Section 15 of the Narcotic Rigorous imprisonment for a period
Drugs and Psychotropic of one and a half year and to pay
Substances Act, 1985 fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of
payment of fine, to further undergo
rigorous imprisonment for six
months.
3. Brief facts of the case are that on 04.03.2004, ASI Ramesh
Chander along with HC Pritam Singh was on patrolling duty at Bariali Chowk
and when they saw the appellant coming from village Ballo Majra on
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:039982
motorcycle, he tried to turn back but ASI Ramesh Chander along with other
police officials apprehended him on the basis of suspicion and he was
apprehended with 10 Kg of Poppy Husk and two samples of 250 grams each
were drawn from the bag and then the same were sent to the chemical
examiner. Subsequently, FIR (supra) was registered under Section 15 of the
NDPS Act.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Court
below has fallen into grave error in convicting the appellant, as his 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 linking evidence is also
inadequate to form a complete chain. Further, there is also an unexplained
delay in sending the sample of the alleged contraband to the FSL and only
official and interested witnesses have been produced which creates doubt
regarding their truthfulness. She further contends that she is not assailing the
impugned judgment of conviction dated 13.07.2007 on merits and restricts her
prayer to modification of the order on quantum of sentence, to that of the
sentence already undergone by the appellant, as he has already undergone a
period of 20 days in custody and is not involved in any other criminal case.
5. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the
appellant as the learned Court below has passed a 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 10 kg of Poppy Husk, i.e. intermediate
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:039982
quantity, attracting the offence of Section 15 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 20
days out of total sentence of one and a half year, 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.
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
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:039982
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 04.03.2004 and the appellant has been suffering the agony of trial for
last more than 21 years. Since his conviction, he 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 dated 13.07.2007 passed by the learned Judge,
Special Court, Rupnagar, is upheld.
(ii) The order of sentence dated 13.07.2007 is modified to the
extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one and a
half year with fine along with default mechanism awarded to the
appellant is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone
by him.
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
4 of 4
