1284 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 12.05.2025 Raju @ Rajinder ....Appellant Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Ms. Manisha Singh, Advocate for Mr. Manvinder Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Harkesh Kumar, AAG, Haryana.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

1. The prayer in the present appeal is to set aside the judgment of conviction dated 06.05.2009 and order of sentence dated 11.05.2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, whereby, the appellant was convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter ‘NDPS Act’), in the case stemming from FIR No.202 dated 03.07.2007, under Sections 17/18/61/85 of the NDPS Act at Police Station City Dabwali.

2. The appellant was convicted for keeping in possession 880 grams of opium and sentenced as mentioned below:

3. Learned counsel for the appellant inter alia contends that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case and conscious possession of the alleged contraband from the appellant has not been proved. There are also material discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. No independent witness was joined in the investigation and there is non-compliance of all the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act. Further, she is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction 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 an actual period of 05 months and 19 days in custody and he is not involved in any other criminal activity.

4. 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 and as such, he 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 880 grams of opium, i.e. intermediate quantity, attracting the offence of Section 18 of NDPS Act, for which no minimum punishment has been prescribed. As per his custody certificate, appellant has already undergone an actual period of 05 months and 19 days out of total sentence of 18 months, in the instant case. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Section 18 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 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 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.

7. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravada Sasikala vs. State of AP AIR 2017 SC 1166, has reiterated that the imposition of sentence also serves a social purpose as it acts as a