Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sunder Lal vs State Of Haryana on 26 March, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:041697
645 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRA-S-1741-SB-2007
Date of decision: 26.03.2025
Sunder Lal ....Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Satbir Gill, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Harkesh Kumar, AAG, Haryana.
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)
1. The prayer in the present appeal is to set aside the judgment of
conviction dated 13.07.2007 and order of sentence dated 18.07.2007 passed by
learned Sessions Judge, Sirsa, 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.121 dated 08.03.2004, under Section 15 of the NDPS
Act at Police Station City Sirsa.
2. The appellant was sentenced as mentioned below:
Offence Sentence
Section 15 of the Narcotic Rigorous imprisonment for a period
Drugs and Psychotropic of two years and to pay fine of
Substances Act, 1985 Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment
of fine, to further undergo rigorous
imprisonment for three months.
3. Brief facts of the case are that ASI Baldev Raj along with HC
Balbir Singh, Constable Rajender Singh and Constable Chandan Singh was on
patrolling duty at T-point Kanganpur Road, Auto Market Sirsa and saw the
appellant coming from the side of Village Kanganpur carrying bag on his head.
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:041697
The appellant was apprehended with 25 Kg of chura post and two samples of
100 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 out of six
independent witnesses, one-Lakhwinder Singh did not support the case of the
prosecution and deposed that neither the recovery has been effected in his
presence nor recovery memo bear his signature. There is non-compliance of
Section 50 of the NDPS Act and the linking evidence is also missing. Further,
there was also a delay of 03 days in sending the sample of the alleged
contraband to the FSL which creates doubt in the case set up by the
prosecution. There are major discrepancies in the testimony of PW-5-Om
Parkash and PW-6-Balbir Singh and statement of the appellant under Section
313 of Cr.P.C. has not been recorded in accordance with law. He further
contends that he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated
13.07.2007 on merits and restricts his prayer to modification of the order on
quantum on sentence dated 18.07.2007, to that of the sentence already undergone
by the appellant, as he has already undergone a period of 06 months and 04 days
in custody and is not involved in any criminal activity.
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 and also, the
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:041697
appellant is involved in one more case under the NDPS Act, 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 kg of chura post, i.e. intermediate 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 06
months and 04 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 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
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:041697
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 08.03.2004 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 Sessions
Judge, Sirsa, is upheld.
(ii) The order of sentence dated 18.07.2007 is modified to the
extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 02 years and
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
26.03.2025
Neha Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
