476 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 17.03.2025 Pritam Singh ....Appellant Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Narinder Singh, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Harkesh Kumar, AAG, Haryana.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order on quantum of sentence dated 27.01.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad whereby, the appellant was convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter ‘NDPS Act’), in the case stemming from FIR No.444 dated 16.09.2004 Police Station, Ratia District Fatehabad Under Section 15 of NDPS Act, 1985.

2. The appellant was sentenced as mentioned below:

3. Brief facts of the case are that on 16.9.2004, ASI Ramesh Kumar along with other police officials were present at canal bridge Bhakhra in the area of Bhunderwas in connection with patrolling and crime checking. In the meanwhile a person was seen coming from the side of village Rojhanwali having a plastic bag on his head, who on seeing the police party, turned back but he was apprehended by ASI Ramesh Kumar with the help of other officials. On interrogation, he disclosed his name as Pritam Singh son of Gurdev Singh, and on suspicion ASI Ramesh Kumar served a notice under Section 50 of the Act. Thereafter search of the bag of the accused/appellant was conducted and poppy husk was found in the same. Two samples of 100 grams each were separated out of the same and converted the same into parcels. The remainder on weighment was found to be 12 kilograms including the bag which was converted into sealed parcel. 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 27.01.2007 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 04 month and 26 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 possession12 kgs 200 gms poppy husk attracting the offence under Section 15 of NDPS Act, for 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 4 months and 26 days out of total sentence of one year and six months, in the instant case. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Section 15 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 Su