201 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 12.03.2025 SATISH ...APPELLANT Versus STATE OF HARYANA ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate for Mr. Jitender Dhanda, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG Haryana.

***

Harpreet Singh Brar, J. (Oral)

1. Present appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment of conviction and order on quantum of sentence dated 29.01.2009/30.01.2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar vide which the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as mentioned below:

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 04.05.2007, a police party headed by SI Jeet Singh, CIA Staff, Hisar along with other police officials were on patrolling duty and were present in front of gate No. 3 of Guru Jambeshwar University, Hisar. The police party saw a youth (accused-petitioner) coming from the side of Vikas Nagar Ambedkar Basti, Hisar, who has carrying one black colour ploythene envelope in his right hand. On seeing the police party, the accused-petitioner turned back and started moving swiftly, but on suspicion, he was apprehended and his identity was verified. On the basis of suspicion, search of the petitioner and his belongings was conducted. Thereafter, on search of the polythene envelope carried by petitioner-accused, it was found to be containing 01 KG of Charas, out of which two representative samples, each 10 grams were separated and converted into two parcels. All the parcels were sealed. FIR(supra) was registered under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘NDPS Act’).

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 29.01.2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar on merits and restricts his prayer to modification of the order on quantum of sentence dated 30.01.2009 to that of sentence already undergone by the appellant as he has already undergone a period of more than 09 months and 17 days out of total sentence of three years imposed upon him and he is not involved in any other case.

4. 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.

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 01 kilogram of Charas, attracting the offence under Section 20 of NDPS Act, for which no minimum punishment has been prescribed. As per his custody certificate, he is not involved in any other case and has already undergone an actual sentence of 09 months and 17 days out of total sentence of three years, in the instant case. 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 order on quantum of sentence. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Section 20 of 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.

6. 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 gravi