IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

584 CRA-S-1328-SB-2007 (O&M)

Date of decision: 20.03.2025 Balbir Singh ....Appellant Versus State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Ms. Roopse Sharma, Advocate for Mr. L.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG, Punjab.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)

1. The prayer in the present appeal is to set-aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.06.2007 passed by learned Special Judge, Moga whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 15(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter ‘the NDPS Act’), in the case stemming from FIR No.153 dated 06.12.2003 registered under Section 15 of the NDPS Act at Police Station Kot Ise Khan, District Moga.

2. The appellant was sentenced as mentioned below:

3. Brief facts of the case are that on 06.12.2003, ASI Chamkaur Singh along with HC Piara Singh and other police officials were on patrolling duty and present at the bridge of seepage canal situated in the area of village Mastewala, they saw the appellant coming from the western side of the berm of the canal, carrying a gunny bag on his head. On the basis of suspicion, the appellant was apprehended and recovery of 25.250 Kgs of Poppy Husk was effected from him. Subsequently, FIR (supra) was registered under Section 15 of the NDPS Act.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that she is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 14.06.2007 on merits and restricts her prayer only qua modification of the order on quantum of sentence, to that of the sentence already undergone by the appellant, as he has already undergone a period of 07 months and 11 days and is not involved in any other criminal activity.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the appellant on the ground that the learned Court below has passed a well- reasoned judgment based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record as such, he does not deserve any leniency.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record with their able assistance, it transpires that the appellant was convicted for being in possession of 25.250 kgs of Poppy Husk, i.e. intermediate quantity, attracting the offence of Section 15 of the NDPS Act, for which no minimum punishment has been prescribed. As per custody certificate, the appellant is not involved in any other case and has already undergone an actual sentence of 07 months and 11 days out of total sentence of 03 years, in the instant case. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Section 15 NDPS Act, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice, if the sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him.

7. In Deo Narain Mandal Vs. State of UP, (2004) 7 SCC 257 a three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has opined that awarding of sentence is not a mere formality in criminal cases. When a minimum and maximum term is prescribed by the statute with regard to the period of sentence, a discretionary element is vested in the Court. Background of each case, which includes factors like gravity of the offence, the manner, in which the offence is committed, age of the accused, should be considered, while determining the quantum of sentence and this discretion is not to be used arbitrarily or whimsically. After assessing all relevant factors, proper sentence should be awarded bearing in mind the principle of proportionality to ensure the sentence is neither excessively harsh nor does it come across as lenient. Further, a two-Judge Bench