IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 06.03.2025 ANOOP SINGH ALIAS SONU ...Appellant Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Gursahib Singh Hundal, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG, Punjab.

***

Harpreet Singh Brar, J. (Oral)

1. Present appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.02.2006 passed by learned Judge, Special Court, Amritsar vide which the appellant has been convicted under Section 21 of NDPS Act and sentenced as mentioned below:

2. Learned counsel for the appellant inter alia contends that there is non-compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. Further, the representative sample was sent after a delay of 9 days and no offer under the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act was made. No independent witness had joined and the case of the prosecution solely rests on official witnesses. He further contends that he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 23.02.2006 passed by learned Judge, Special Court, Amritsar on merits and restricts his prayer to modification of the order on quantum of sentence dated 23.02.2006 to that of sentence already undergone by the appellant as he has already undergone a period of 16 days.

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

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.

5. In Deo Narain Mandal v. State 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, 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.

6. Further, a two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravada Sasikala v. 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 between the efficacy of law and the chances of reformation of the accused.

7. A perusal of the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court indicates no perversity in its findings and the said judgment is based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record. Moreover, learned counsel for the appellant has not assailed the judgment of conviction on merits, rather he has restricted his prayer only qua modification of quantum of sentence.

8. The FIR in the present case was lodged in the year 2004 and the appellant has been suffering the agony of trial since the last about 21 years. As per the custody certificate, the