Wariam Singh vs State Of Punjab
2025 Latest Caselaw 3805 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Wariam Singh vs State Of Punjab on 28 March, 2025

                                      Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:043166




679        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                        AT CHANDIGARH

                                                   CRA-S-1961-SB-2007
                                                   Date of decision: 28.03.2025

WARIAM SINGH
                                                                ...APPELLANT
                           V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB
                                                            ...RESPONDENT

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present:     Mr. N.S. Dandiwal, Advocate
             for the appellant.

             Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG, Punjab.
                   ****

HARPREET SINGH BRAR,
               BRAR J. (ORAL)

1. The prayer in the present appeal is to set aside the judgment of

conviction dated 17.09.2007 and order of sentence dated 19.09.2007 passed by

learned Special Judge, Moga, 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 referred to as

'NDPS Act'), in the case stemming from FIR No. No.120 dated 17.12.2003

registered under Section 15 of NDPS Act at Police Station Mehna.

2. The appellant was sentenced for keeping in his possession 30 kgs

of Poppy Husk as mentioned below:

Offence Sentence

Section 15(b) of the Narcotic Rigorous imprisonment for a period Drugs and Psychotropic of 03 years and to pay fine of Substances Act, 1985 Rs.5,000 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for 03 months.

1 of 4

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:043166

CRA-S-1961-SB

3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that he is not assailing

the impugned judgment of conviction dated 17.09.2007 passed by learned

Special Judge, Moga on merits and restricts his prayer to modification of the

order on quantum of sentence dated 19.09.2007 to that of sentence already

undergone by the appellant.

appellant As per the custody certificate, the appellant has

undergone actual period of 06 months and 21 days and he is not involved in

any other case.

4. Per contra, contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the

appellant as the learned Court below has passed a well well-reasoned judgment

based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record as such, he does

not deserve any leniency.

lenien

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 30 kgs of Poppy Husk, which falls under

the purview of Section 15 NDPS Act. As per the custody certificate, the

appellant has undergone a period of 06 months and 21 days out of total

sentence of three years and he is not involved in any other case case. Since there is

no minimum punishment prescribed under under Section 15 of NDPS Act, for the

non-commercial commercial quantity 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 257 257, 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

2 of 4

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:043166

CRA-S-1961-SB

element lement 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 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, 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 ccrime, 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 ndicates 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 17.12.2003 and the appellant has been suffering the

agony of trial for last more than 21 years. Since ce his conviction, he has grown

into law-abiding abiding citizen and desires to live a peaceful life.

9. Therefore, in view of the discussion above, present appeal is

disposed of in the following terms:-

terms:

3 of 4

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:043166

CRA-S-1961-SB

(i) The judgment dated 17.09.2007 passed by the learned Special

Judge, Moga is upheld.

(ii) The order of sentence datedd 19.09.2007 is modified to the

extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 03 years

and fine of Rs.5,000/-

Rs. along with default mechanism awarded to

the appellant is reduced to the peri period of sentence already

undergone by him.

(HARPREET HARPREET SINGH BRAR BRAR) March 28, 2025 5 JUDGE manisha

(i) Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No

(ii) Whether reportable Yes/No

4 of 4