1023 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Decided on:30.04.2025 Surender Kumar .... Appellant versus State of Haryana .... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Ms. Parul Saini, Advocate for Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Harkesh Kumar, AAG, Haryana.

****

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 04/05.07.2008 passed by learned Judge, Special Court, Panipat whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ‘NDPS Act’), in the case stemming from FIR No.487 dated 22.09.2006 registered under Section 20 of NDPS Act at Police Station Chandni Bagh, Panipat.

2. The appellant was sentenced for keeping in his possession 280 grams of charas, as mentioned below:

3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 04.07.2008 passed by learned Judge, Special Court, Panipat on merits and restricts his prayer to modification of the order on quantum of sentence dated 05.07.2008 to that of sentence already undergone by the appellant. As per the custody certificate, the appellant has undergone a period of 04 months and 26 days and is not involved in any other case.

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

5. 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 280 grams of charas, which falls under the purview of Section 20 of NDPS Act. As per the custody certificate, the appellant has undergone a period of 04 months and 26 days out of total sentence of 2½ years in the instant case and is not involved in any other case. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Section 20 of NDPS Act for the non-commercial quantity 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.

6. In Deo Narain Mandal vs. State of U.P. (2004) 7 SCC 257, 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, 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.

7. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravada Sasikala vs. State of AP AIR 2017 SC 1166, has reiterated that the imposition of sentence also serves a social purpose as it acts as a deterrent by making the accused realise the damage caused not only to the victim but also to the society at large. The 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 be