Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ram Saroop vs State Of Punjab on 28 March, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:043057
202 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRA-S-1728-SB-2010
Date of decision: 28.03.2025
Ram Saroop ....Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Ms. Manjot Kaur, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab.
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)
1. The prayer in the present appeal is to set aside the judgment of
conviction dated 10.11.2009 and order of sentence dated 12.11.2009 passed by
learned Judge, Special Court, Patiala, whereby, the appellant was convicted and
sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs
and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter 'NDPS Act'), in the case
stemming from FIR No.421 dated 18.11.2003, under Section 20 of the NDPS
Act at Police Station Kotwali Patiala.
2. The appellant was convicted for keeping in possession 500 grams
of charas, and was sentenced as mentioned below:
Offence Sentence
Section 20 of the Narcotic Rigorous imprisonment for a period
Drugs and Psychotropic of four years and to pay fine of
Substances Act, 1985 Rs.10,000/- and in default of
payment of fine, to further undergo
rigorous imprisonment for two
months.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that he is not assailing
the impugned judgment of conviction dated 10.11.2009 on merits and restricts
his prayer to modification of the order on quantum of sentence, to that of the
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:043057
sentence already undergone by the appellant, as he has already undergone a
period of 02 years and 25 days in custody and he was involved in two more
cases in which he has been acquitted.
4. 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 he was
involved in two more cases under the NDPS Act, as such, he 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 500 grams of charas, i.e. intermediate quantity,
attracting the offence of Section 20 of the NDPS Act, for which no minimum
punishment has been prescribed. As per his custody certificate, he has already
undergone an actual sentence of 02 years and 25 days out of total sentence of
04 years, in the instant case. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed
under Section 20 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.
6. 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
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:043057
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, 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.
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. However, the FIR (supra) was
lodged on 18.11.2003 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.
9. Therefore, in view of the discussion above, the present appeal is
disposed of in the following terms:-
(i) The judgment dated 10.11.2009 passed by the learned Judge,
Special Court, Patiala, is upheld.
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:043057
(ii) The order of sentence dated 12.11.2009 is modified to the
extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 04 years and
fine along 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.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
28.03.2025
Neha
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
