Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.S. Chauhan, A.K. Sikri, JJ.
State of Haryana - Appellant
Versus
Joginder Ram - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 210 of 2009
Decided On : 27-05-2014
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 - Conviction - Lenient sentence based on repentance and chance for reformation
Fact of the Case:
The respondent was convicted under section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985. The trial court awarded a sentence of 23 days, considering the respondent's repentance and chance for reformation.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court maintained the sentence and dismissed the appeal. The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the sentence, considering the time elapsed and lack of subsequent implication in any similar case by the respondent.
Issues: The leniency of the sentence and the lack of discussion or reasons provided for the period of sentence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the respondent's repentance and chance for reformation as factors for leniency in the sentence. The time elapsed and lack of subsequent implication in any similar case also influenced the decision.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed without affirming it as a precedent.
ORDER :
B.S. Chauhan, J.
The respondent was convicted under 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985. Insofar as the sentence is concerned, the trial court awarded the sentence already undergone, which was only 23 days.
2. Against the aforesaid sentence given by the trial court vide its order dated 27.02.2006, the appellant preferred an appeal in the High Court. The High Court has maintained the said sentence and dismissed the appeal. No doubt, we find that there is not much discussion or reasons given in support of the aforesaid period of sentence, but at the same time it is also recorded by the trial court that the respondent was repentant of his conduct and had undertaken to be have like an improved citizen and therefore, lenient view was taken giving him a chance to reform himself.
3. Having regard to the fact that the order of the trial court is of February, 2006 and more than eight years have passed, we feel that for this reason alone, it is not necessary to interfere with the order of the trial court which has been affirmed by the High Court, but more so, when on our specific query, learned counsel for the State could not point out as to whether the respondent was thereafter implicated in any such case.
4. Therefore, without affirming it as a precedent, the appeal is dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
