463 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 17.03.2025 JAGIR SINGH @ JIRI ....Appellant Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Sant Pal Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG, Punjab.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 18.01.2007 and order on quantum of sentence dated 19.01.2007 passed by learned Special Judge, Ferozepur 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.15 dated 12.02.2001 registered at Police Station, Mamdot.

2. The appellant was sentenced as mentioned below:

3. Brief facts of the case are that on 12.02.2001 SI Major Singh Incharge CIA Staff, Headquarter alongwith SI Gopal Chand, ASI Jaswant Rai, ASI Dev Raj and other police officials was proceeding on an official canter bearing No.PB-05D/9550 from CIA Staff Headquarter towards Mamdot on the metaled road in connection with patrol duty and checking suspected persons. When the police party reached at the bus stop of village Karma the accused came over the road from the right side. On being search 50 gms of smack was recovered. Hence the FIR (supra) was registered.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Court below has fallen into grave error in convicting the appellant, as his guilt has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is contended that the mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act have not been followed and the link evidence is not reliable. Further no independent witness was joined and there are inherent improbabilities in the case of the prosecution. He further contends that he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 18.01.2007 on merits and restricts his prayer to 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 one year, one month and five days in custody and is not involved in any other criminal 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 having in possession 50 grams smack attracting the offence under Section 21 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 a total sentence of 1 year, 1 month and 5 days in custody. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Section 21 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.

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 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