IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 09.09.2025 Inder Pal @ Palli ... Appellant Versus State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present:- Mr. Rahul Vijay Singh Chugh, Advocate (Legal Aid Counsel)

for the appellant.

Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG, Punjab.

***

H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral)

CRM-50667-2012

1. Allowed as prayed for.

CRA-S-2486-SB-2012

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of quantum of sentence dated 16.08.2012, passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, Faridkot, in FIR No.134 dated 25.05.2011, registered at Police Station City Faridkot, whereby he has been convicted under Section 22 of the NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 01 year, to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default thereof, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 01 month.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 25.05.2011, the appellant was apprehended while having in possession of intoxicant powder containing

50 grams Dextropropoxyphene, which is marginally above the small quantity. Pursuant thereto, the trial Court vide impugned judgment and order of sentence dated 16.08.2012 had convicted the appellant and sentenced him to undergo aforesaid imprisonment.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 16.08.2012 on merits and restricts his prayer qua modification of the order on quantum of sentence, to the period as already undergone by the appellant because he has already undergone an actual sentence of 03 months 27 days out of the total sentence of 01 year. The appellant is not involved in any other case under the NDPS Act. He further prays that since the FIR in question pertains to the year 2011, a lenient view may be taken while passing an order/judgment by this Court.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the appellant by way of filing of custody certificate dated 08.09.2025 on the ground that the learned Court below has passed a well reasoned judgment based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record. As per the custody certificate, the appellant has already undergone an actual sentence of

03 months and 27 days out of the total sentence of 01 year.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material placed on record.

6. The appellant is stated to have been convicted for having in possession of intoxicant powder containing 50 grams Dextropropoxyphene, which is marginally above the small quantity attracting the offence under Section 22 of the NDPS Act, for which no minimum punishment has been prescribed. Moreover, the FIR in the present case pertains to the year 2011 and he has already faced the rigors of the trial for more than 14 years.

7. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in “Deo Narain Mandal Vs. State of UP”, (2004) 7 SCC 257, has held 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, the 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-Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravada Sasikala Vs. State of AP, AIR 2017 SC 1166, has held that the imposition of sentence also serves a social purpose, as it acts as a deterrent by making the accused realise the damage caused not only to the victim, but also to the society at large. The law in this regard is well settled th