The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the reformatory theory and the consideration of the appellant's reformation and rehabilitation in society to determine the appropriate sentence.

JUDGMENT

Sanjay Vashisth, J. (Oral) - Appellant - Santokh Singh, aged 35 years (at the time of conviction), has filed the present appeal challenging judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.11.2004, passed by Judge Special Court, Rupnagar, in Sessions Case No.4/8.01.2003, arising from FIR No. 84 dated 29.09.2002 under Sections 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, 'NDPS Act'), registered at Police Station Chamkaur Sahib.

2. On 29.09.2002, in the area of Bhairon Majra, appellant was found in possession of 10 kg 500 grams of contraband, which was kept in a plastic bag. After completing formalities, investigation and receipt of FSL report E.x PH, seized contraband was declared that of poppy husk. Accordingly, appellant - Santokh Singh, was put to trial. He was charged for the offence punishable under Section 15 of the NDPS Act. Eventually, learned Trial Court held the appellant guilty of the offence, vide judgment of conviction dated 05.11.2004 and vide separate order of sentence of even date i.e. order dated 05.11.2004, he was sentenced as under:-

Appeal was admitted on 19.11.2004, recovery of fine was stayed and after noticing the factum of total undergone period inside jail, remaining sentence of the appellant was suspended by this Court.

4. At the final hearing of the appeal today, learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has reformed himself by rehabilitating in the society, as he has never got involved in any other case of similar nature despite being on bail since the time of conviction by learned trial Court. Thus, he submits that sending the appellant behind the bars after more than 19 years of period may spoil his and his family members' complete future career and thus, a sympathetic view may be taken qua the sentence part, without therebeing any challenge by the appellant qua the conviction.

5. Learned State counsel has furnished custody certificate dated 11.03.2023, which is already on record. As per said custody certificate, appellant had remained inside jail for about 17 days, however, except present case, there is nothing mentioned about the registration of any other case. Thus, learned State counsel agrees on the issue that except present case, in which appellant is convicted, there is no such instance of recovery from the appellant of any contra-band, covered under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance gone through the record.

7. This Court has examined the submissions addressed by learned counsel from both the sides and also perused the custody certificate dated 11.03.2023, and has noticed that except the present case, appellant is not involved in any other criminal case.

8. Another noticeable aspect is that after release of the appellant on bail, vide order dated 19.11.2004, by this Court, he was never found indulged in any other similar activity, which shows that with the passage of time, appellant has adopted the principles of reformatory theory, which otherwise also sends a direct message to reform oneself, despite facing conviction in a criminal case.

9. On the issue of reformatory theory in context to any wrong doer, His Lordship V.R. Krishna Iyer, J., of Hon'ble Apex Court, in case titled as Mohammad Giasuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1977) 3 SCC 287, has observed as under:-

'5. If every saint has a past, every sinner has a future, and it is the role of law to remind both of this. The Indian legal genius of old has made a healthy contribution to the word treasury of criminology. The drawback of our criminal process is that often they are built on the bricks of impressionist opinions and dated values. Ignoring empirical studies and deeper researches.' (emphasis added)

10. In case titled as Satish @ Sabbe v. State of Uttar Pradesh (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.