The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of reformatory theory and rehabilitation principles in sentencing under the NDPS Act, considering the appellant's reformation and lack of criminal antecedents.

JUDGMENT

Sanjay Vashisth, J. - Appellant - Lakhwinder Kumar, aged 25 years (at the time of conviction), has filed the present appeal challenging judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.02.2005, passed by Judge Special Court, Patiala, in Sessions Case No.91-T of 27.9.2004/9.8.2003, arising from FIR No. 33, dated 12.04.2003, under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, 'NDPS Act'), registered at Police Station Julkan.

2. On 12.04.2003, ASI Ranbir Singh along with ASI Varinder Singh and other police officials of Police Station Julkan, on a patrol duty were proceeding in a Gypsy bearing No.PB-08F-2271, driven by H.C. Balbir Singh. When they reached Devigarh-Binjal road on the bridge of Tangri river in the revenue limits of village Ojha, at about 4.30 P.M., P-W Lakhwinder Singh alias Happy came in zen car and after stopping the car, he was holding talk with ASI Ranbir Singh, when they saw accused coming from the side of village Ratta Khera on the bank of Tangri river and was holding white colour polythene bag in his right hand. On suspicion, he was apprehended by the police party and notice under Section 18(c) of the NDPS Act was served upon him, and the accused reposed confidence in ASI Ranbir Singh and after preparing consent memo, search was conducted, on which polythene bag was found to be containing opium. Thereafter, sample as well as the residue were converted into sealed parcels and taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PF. Accused was arrested after serving him with arrest memo Ex.PD and information memo Ex.PE, was also prepared. After completing the investigation and receipt of FSL Report (Ex. PH), seized contraband was declared that of opium. Accordingly, appellant - Lakhwinder Kumar, was put to trial. He was charged for the offence punishable under Section 18(c) of the NDPS Act, vide order dated 13.04.2003. Eventually, learned Trial Court held the appellant guilty of the offence, vide judgment of conviction dated 23.02.2005 and vide separate order of sentence of even date i.e. order dated 23.02.2005, he was sentenced as under:-

3. Appeal was admitted on 07.04.2005. Thereafter, vide order dated 07.04.2005, 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 never got involved in any other case of similar nature despite being on bail since the time of conviction by learned trial Court. Thus, submits that sending the appellant behind the bars after more than 19 years of period may spoil his and his family members complete future carrier and thus, a sympathetic view can be taken qua the sentence part, without there-being any challenge by the appellant qua the conviction.

5. Learned State counsel furnished custody certificate dated 03.03.2023, today in the Court, which is taken on record. As per said custody certificate, appellant had remained inside jail for about 1 month period, 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 03.03.2023, 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, vid