IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 16.03.2026.

Malkiat Singh ...Appellant.

Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent.

***

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR .......

Present: Mr. Gopal Singh Nahel, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Navdeep Singh, DAG, Punjab.

***

SUKHVINDER KAUR , J .

1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.02.2026 passed by learned Judge, Special Court, Sangrur, vide which the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 06 months along with fine of Rs.3,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 15 of NDPS Act and in default of payment of fine to further undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of 30 days.

2. Brief facts of this case are that the aforesaid FIR was registered against the appellant when he was apprehended outside his house by the police officials and 14 Kg poppy plants were recovered from him. He failed to produce any license regarding the conscious possession of the same. The investigation was completed and challan was presented. After trial, the appellant was convicted and sentenced as stated above by the trial Court, hence this appeal has been filed by the appellant, challenging his conviction and sentence.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that he does not want to challenge the conviction of appellant on merits but as far as sentence part is concerned, he prays that the same may be reduced to that of already undergone by the appellant. He has submitted that the present case pertains to the year 2026 and the appellant has already undergone the actual sentence of 02 months and 07 days of the total awarded sentence of 06 months by the trial Court. He has further submitted that the appellant is not involved in any other case. He has submitted that as such a lenient view be taken and the sentence awarded be reduced to that of already undergone.

4. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellant. He submits that the recovery was duly effected from the appellant. He further submits that the present appeal is liable to be dismissed.

5. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the record has been meticulously examined with their able assistance.

6. Since the appellant has not challenged the judgment of conviction on merits, as such the said issues are not being gone into at this stage and it is being restricted to the issue pertaining to sentencing and quantum of punishment.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pramod Kumar Mishra Vs. State of UP (2023) 9 SCC 810, observed that punishment must not be viewed as an act of vengeance but as a means of reformation and reintegration of the offender into society. It was further held that an appropriate sentence must be determined by considering a range of factors, including the nature and circumstances of the offence, the offender’s background, age, mental and emotional condition, potential for rehabilitation, prior criminal record, and the deterrent needs of the community. Sentencing, the Court noted, involves a delicate exercise of judicial discretion where multiple social, psychological, and moral factors must be balanced to ensure that justice serves both societal protection and individual redemption.

8. Hon'ble Supreme Court again reiterated in Ravada Sasikala v. State of AP reported as AIR 2017 SC 1166, that 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 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. In order to determine the quantum of sentence, Courts should bear in mind the principle of proportionality as awarding punishment is not merely retributive but a