Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jasbir Singh vs State Of Punjab on 26 March, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:041871
CRA-S-1640-SB-2007 (O&M) 1
624 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRA-S-1640-SB-2007 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 26.03.2025
JASBIR SINGH ...APPELLANT
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB ...RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Jaiveer Singh, Advocate as Amicus Curiae
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 05.07.2007
passed by learned Judge, Special Court, Barnala 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. 500/- Rigorous imprisonment
Act for 06 months for one month
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 03.07.2006, SI Kulwant Singh
along with other police officials, in connection with patrolling duty, while in
police Gypsy, was proceeding from village Mehta towards village Rureke
Kalan. When the police party reached near the canal bridge of village Rureke
Kalan, at about 2.10 PM, one young man was seen coming from the side of
village Rureke Kalan, carrying a plastic bag in his hand. On seeing the police
party, he got purplexed and tried to turn back. On suspicion accused-appellant
was apprehended. On the basis of suspicion, search of the appellant-accused
along with his belongings was conducted. Thereafter, on search of plastic bag,
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:041871
held by the appellant, poppy husk was recovered. Out of the bulk of poppy husk,
two samples each of 250 grams were separated and remaining on weighment
was found to be 5 kilograms. All the parcels were sealed. FIR(supra) was
registered under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be referred as 'NDPS Act').
3. Learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant inter alia contends that the
entire case of the prosecution hinges upon the testimonies of official witnesses.
One Boota Singh was joined as independent witness, but he was not examined
by the prosecution for the reasons best known to them and mandatory provisions
of Section 42, 50, 55 and 57 of NDPS Act were not complied with. Further,
there is a delay in depositing the representative sample in Forensic Science
Laboratory as discernible from the statements of PW-1 Constable Krishan
Kumar and PW-2 HC Sarabjit Singh. There are material contradictions in the
testimonies of official witnesses rendering them unworthy of any reliance.
Further, the appellant is not involved in any other case and has undergone
around 02 months and 10 days of custody out of total sentence of 06 months
awarded to him.
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 5.500 kilograms of poppy husk, attracting the offence
under Section 15 of NDPS Act, for which no minimum punishment has been
prescribed. Appellant has already undergone custody of around 02 months and
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:041871
10 days out of total sentence of 06 months, in the instant case. Since there is no
minimum punishment prescribed under Section 15 of 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.
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.
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:041871
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
correct appreciation of evidence available on record. However, the FIR (supra)
was lodged on 03.07.2006 and the appellant has been suffering the agony of trial
for last more than 18 years. Since his conviction, the appellant has reformed into
a law-abiding citizen and intends 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 05.07.2007 passed by the learned
Judge, Special Court, Barnala is upheld.
(ii) The order of sentence dated 05.07.2007 is modified to
the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 06 months
along with fine of Rs. 500/- with default mechanism awarded to the
appellant is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by
him.
10. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
11. High Court Legal Services Committee is directed to pay
remuneration to the Amicus Curiae, as per rules.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
26.03.2025
Ajay Goswami Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
