JUDGMENT

Sanjay Vashisth, J.

Appellant - Raj Pal, aged about 25 years (at the time of conviction), has filed the present appeal challenging judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.12.2004, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhri, in Sessions Case No. 81, dated 12.05.2003, arising from FIR No. 132, dated 28.04.2003, under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, 'NDPS Act'), registered at Police Station Farakpur, District Yamunanagar.

2. As per prosecution version, on 28.04.2003, appellant - Raj Pal was apprehended by a police party headed by ASI Yash Pal, when he was going towards ITI Chowk, Yamunanagar, with a bag in his hand, with suspicion that he was carrying some contraband in his possession. Upon service of notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, with regard to option of search by a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer, appellant opted to be searched by a Gazetted Officer. Accordingly, he was taken to the office of Bijender Singh, DSP, Jagadhri, in whose presence search of the bag was carried out by ASI Yash Pal, and 8 Kgs. of Choora-post (poppy husk) was recovered. After completing the requisite formalities, such as separation of samples, preparation of parcels of samples and residue contraband, and affixing seals on parcels etc., formal FIR (Ex. PC) was registered. After completing formalities and investigation etc., appellant - Raj Pal was put to trial. He was charged for the offence punishable under Section 15 of the NDPS Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

3. Learned Trial Court held the appellant guilty of the offence, vide judgment of conviction dated 03.12.2004 and vide order of sentence dated 03.12.2004, he was sentenced as under:-

4. Appeal was admitted on 06.01.2005, and after noticing the factum of recovery of non-commercial quantity of 8 Kgs. of poppy husk from the appellant; total undergone period inside jail against the substantive sentence of 8 months; and fine of Rs.1,000/-, remaining sentence of the appellant was suspended during pendency of the appeal, by this Court.

5. At the final hearing of the appeal today, learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not want to challenge the judgment of conviction dated 03.12.2004, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhri. However, on the question of quantum of sentence, learned counsel for the appellant submits that at the time of conviction, appellant was aged about 25 years and by now he has attained the age of more than 44 years; he is the sole bread earner for his family; and that appellant is facing agony of criminal prosecution for the last 19 years, therefore, taking a lenient view, remaining substantive sentence of imprisonment of the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him in jail.

5(i). Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the concept of reformatory theory in context to any wrong doer is well established by now in criminal jurisprudence, through a catena of judgments passed from time to time by Hon'ble the Supreme Court as well as by this Court. In this regard, learned counsel for the appellant has referred to and placed reliance on following judgments:-

1. Mohammad Giasuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1977) 3 SCC 287;

2. Satish @ Sabbe v. Stateof Uttar Pradesh (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 7369 of 2019, decided on 30.09.2020 : Law Finder Doc ID # 1746022);

3. Commissioner of Police and others v. Sandeep Kumar, (2011) 4 SCC 644;

4. Haribhau v. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 18 SCC 43;

5. Naresh Kumar v. State of Haryana (CRA-S-796-SB- 2005, decided on 24.02.2023);

6. Lakhwinder Kumar v. State of Punjab (CRA-S-660- SB-2005, decided on 03.03.2023); and

7. Santokh Singh v. State of Punjab (CRA-S-2254-SB- 2004, decided on 11.04.2023).

6. On the other hand, Mr. Pawan Kumar Jhanda, learned Assistant A