1220 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 08.05.2025 JAIN KUMAR ...APPELLANT Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Ishan Thakur, Advocate for Mr. L.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Nitesh Sharma, DAG Punjab.

***

Harpreet Singh Brar, J. (Oral)

1. The prayer in the present appeal is to set aside the judgment of conviction and order on quantum of sentence dated 30.01.2009 passed by learned Judge, Special Court, Mansa whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 61 of Punjab Excise Act and Section 22 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘NDPS Act’) in the case stemming from FIR No.

122 dated 04.08.2004 registered at Police Station Bhikhi.

3. The appellant was sentenced for keeping in his possession ten cartons of country made illicit liquor (120 bottles) and 700 grams intoxicating powder, as mentioned below:

4. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 30.01.2009 passed by learned Judge, Special Court, Mansa 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 07 months and 14 days out of total sentence of 01 year imposed upon him.

5. 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.

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 his possession ten cartons of country made illicit liquor (120 bottles) and 700 grams intoxicating powder, attracting the offence under Section 61 of Punjab Excise Act and Section 22 of NDPS Act, for which no minimum punishment has been prescribed. As per his custody certificate, he has already undergone an actual sentence of 07 months and 14 days out of total sentence of 01 year 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 61 of Punjab Excise Act and Section 22 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 v. 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.

8. Further, a two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R