Punjab-Haryana High Court
Joginder Singh vs State Of Pb on 28 March, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:043167
555 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRA-S-1141-SB-2007
Date of decision: 28.03.2025
JOGINDER SINGH
...APPELLANT
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB
...RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. H.S. Rakhra, 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 and order of sentence dated 21.03.2007 passed by learned Judge,
Special Court, Rupnagar whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced
for the offence punishable under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic
opic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'NDPS Act'), in
the case stemming from FIR No.191
No. dated 14.09.2005 registered under
Section 15 of NDPS Act at Police Station Sadar Ropar.
2. The appellant was sentenced for keeping in his possession 5.500
kgs of Poppy Husk,
Husk as mentioned below:
Offence Sentence
Section 15 of the Narcotic Rigorous imprisonment for a period
Drugs and Psychotropic of 01 year and to pay fine of
Substances Act, 1985 Rs.500/- and in default of payment of
fine, to further undergo RI for 01
month.
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:043167
CRA-S-1141-SB
3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that he is not assailing
the impugned judgment of conviction dated 21.03.2007 passed by learned
Judge, Special Court, Rupnagar on merits and restricts his prayer to
modification of the order on quantum of sentence dated 21.03.2007 to that of
sentence already undergone by the appellant.
appellant As per the custody certificate,
the appellant has undergone a period of 04 months and 16 days, out of total
sentence of one year awarded by learned trial Court, in the instant case. The
appellant 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.
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 kg
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 04 months and 16 days, out of total
sentence of one year awarded by learned trial Court, in the instant case. Since
there is no minimum
minimum punishment prescribed under Section 15 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
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:043167
CRA-S-1141-SB
prescribed by the statute with regard to the period of sen
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
ce 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
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 damagee 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
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 tthe 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 14.09.2005 and the appellant has been suffering the
agony of trial for last more than 19 years. Since his conviction, he has grown
into law-abiding
abiding citizen and desires to live a peaceful life.
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:043167
CRA-S-1141-SB
9. Therefore, in view of the discussion above, present appeal is
disposed of in the following terms:-
terms:
(i) The judgment dated 21.03.2007 passed by the learned Judge,
Special Court, Rupnagar is upheld.
(ii) The order of sentence of even date 21.03.2007 is modified to
the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 01 year
and fine of Rs.500/-
Rs. along with default mechanism awarded tto the
appellant is reduced to the 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
