Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pehalwan Alias Palli vs State Of Haryana on 28 March, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:043050
CRA-S No.2004-SB-2007 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
683
CRA-S No.2004-SB-2007 (O&M)
Date of decision: 28.03.2025
Pehalwan @ Palli
....Appellant
Versus
The State of Haryana
....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. B.S. Saroha, 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 and order of sentence dated 20.09.2007 passed
by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad whereby the appellant
was convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section
15 (b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
(hereinafter 'the NDPS Act'), in the case stemming from FIR No.110
dated 16.02.2003 registered under Section 15 of the NDPS Act at Police
Station Ratia.
2. The appellant was convicted for keeping in possession 18
Kgs of Poppy Husk, and sentenced as mentioned below:
Offence Sentence
Section 15 (b) of the Narcotic Rigorous imprisonment for a period of
Drugs and Psychotropic 01 year and 06 months and to pay fine
Substances Act, 1985 of Rs.5,000/- and in default of
payment of fine, to further undergo
simple imprisonment for 03 months.
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:043050
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that he is not assailing
the impugned judgment of conviction dated 20.09.2007 on merits and
restricts his prayer qua 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 05 months and 20 days and is not
involved in any other criminal activity.
5. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the
appellant on the ground that 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 18 Kgs of Poppy
Husk, i.e. intermediate quantity, attracting the offence of Section 15 (b)
of the NDPS Act, for which no minimum punishment has been
prescribed. As per custody certificate, the appellant is not involved in
any other case and has already undergone an actual sentence of 05
months and 20 days out of total sentence of 01 year and 06 months, in
the instant case. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed
under Section 15 (b) of the 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 UP, (2004) 7 SCC 257,
a three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has opined that
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:043050
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, the 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. Further, a
two-Judge Bench of 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 conduct of the accused to strike a balance between the
efficacy of law and the chances of reformation of the accused.
8. 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. Learned
counsel for the appellant has not assailed the judgment of conviction on
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:043050
merits, rather restricted the prayer only qua modification of quantum of
sentence to that of the sentence already undergone by the appellant.
9. The FIR in the present case was registered on 16.02.2003
and the appellant has been suffering the agony of trial since the last
about 22 years. Since his conviction, the appellant has grown into a law-
abiding citizen and desires to live a peaceful life.
10. Consequently, the present appeal is disposed of in the
following terms:-
(i) The judgment of conviction dated 20.09.2007 passed
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad is
upheld.
(ii) The order of sentence dated 20.09.2007 is modified to
the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for
a period of 01 year and 06 months and fine of Rs.5000/-
along with default mechanism awarded to the appellant is
reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by
him.
11. All the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall
also stand disposed of.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
28.03.2025
yakub
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
4 of 4
