1098 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 05.05.2025 RANJIT SINGH ALIAS RANA ...APPELLANT V/S STATE OF PUNJAB ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Ms. Nishi, Advocate as amicus curiae 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 07.10.2008 passed by learned Judge, Special Court, Jalandhar, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter ‘NDPS Act’), in the case stemming from FIR No.95 dated 29.03.2003 under Section 21 of NDPS Act at Police Station Nakodar.

2. The appellant was sentenced as mentioned below:

3. Brief facts of the case are that on 29.03.2003 when ASI Hussan Lal along with other police officials was coming from Nakodar towards Guru Nanak National College, Nakodar and was 100 yards short from canal minor bridge, in connection with patrolling, the appellant was seen coming from the opposite side. On seeing the police, out of nervousness, he started moving towards the bank of canal minor bridge. On suspicion, he was apprehended. Upon his search, 100 grams of Smack wrapped in a glazed paper was recovered from the right pocket of his lower. Subsequently, FIR (supra) was registered under Section 21 of the NDPS Act.

4. Learned amicus curiae for the appellant inter alia contends that there is a total non-compliance of Section 55 of the NDPS Act and it is admitted case of the prosecution that after the recovery of the alleged contraband, the same was produced before the MHC, whereas, as per the provisions contained under Section 55 of NDPS Act, the case property was required to be produced before the SHO. Further, the entire case of the prosecution hinges upon the statements of official witnesses. Moreover, one independent witness was joined, however, he was not examined. She submits that there is non-compliance of Section 50 of NDPS Act as per which, the appellant was subjected to his personal search. Lastly, she submits that the appellant has already undergone total custody period of 02 months and 06 days, out of total sentence of six months, in the instant case and he is not involved in any other case.

5. 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 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 100 grams of Smack, which falls under the purview of Section 21 of NDPS Act. As per his custody certificate, he has already undergone an actual sentence of 02 months and 06 days out of total sentence of six months, in the instant case. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Section 21 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.

7. 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 i