Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hardev Singh vs State Of Punjab on 21 April, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:051108
865 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRA-S-565-SB-2008
Date of decision: 21.04.2025
HARDEV SINGH
...APPELLANT
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB
...RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate and
Mr. Mayank Mahla, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Nitesh Sharma, DAG, 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 12.03.2008 passed by learned Judge, Special Court, Tarn Taran, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'NDPS Act'), in the case stemming from FIR No.91 No. dated 12.06.2003 .06.2003 registered under Section 22 of NDPS Act at Police Station Bikhiwind.
2. The appellant was sentenced for keeping in his possession intoxicants i.e. Diphenoxylate hydrochloride, Atropine Sulphate, Nitrazepam, Carisonprodol, Dextropropoxyphene hydrochloride, Dicyclomine hydrochloride, Paracetamol and Diazepam, Diazepam as mentioned below:
Offence Sentence
Section 22 of the Narcotic Rigorous imprisonment for a period
Drugs and Psychotropic of six months and to pay fine of
Substances Act, 1985 Rs.3,000
3,000/- and in default of payment
1 of 4
::: Downloaded on - 24-04-2025 00:17:35 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:051108 CRA-S-565-SB SB-2008 2 of fine, to further undergo RI for one month.
3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 12.03.2008 passed by learned Judge, Special Court, Tarn Taran on merits and restricts his prayer to modification of the order on quantum of sentence dated 12.03.2008 to that of sentence already undergone by the appellant.
appellant As per the custody certificate, the appellant has undergone a period of 02 months and 01 day and he is not involved in any other case.
4. Per contra, contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the appellant ass 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 non-commercial commercial quantity of intoxicant substances, which falls under the purview of Section 22 NDPS Act. As per the custody certificate, the appellant has undergone undergone a period of 02 months and 01 day out of total sentence of six months, in the instant case and he is not involved in any other case.
case Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Section 22 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 2 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 24-04-2025 00:17:35 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:051108 CRA-S-565-SB SB-2008 3 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, 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 crime, the manner in which the crime rime 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 findings and the same is based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record. However, the FIR (supra)) was lodged on 12.06.2003 and the appellant has been suffering the agony of trial for last about 22 years. Since his conviction, he has grown into law-abiding abiding citizen and desires to live a peaceful life.
3 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 24-04-2025 00:17:35 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:051108 CRA-S-565-SB SB-2008 4
9. Therefore, in view of the discussion above, present appeal is disposed of in the following terms:-
terms:
(i) The judgment dated 12.03.2008 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, Tarn Taran is upheld.
(ii) The order of sentence of even date 12.03.2008 is modified to the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.3,000/- along with default mechanism awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by him.
(HARPREET HARPREET SINGH BRAR BRAR) April 21, 2025 JUDGE manisha
(i) Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
(ii) Whether reportable Yes/No 4 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 24-04-2025 00:17:35 :::