IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 22.09.2025 FAKIR CHAND ... APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA ... RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present:- Mr. Krishan Singh, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Amrik Narwal, DAG, Haryana.

H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral)

1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction dated 19.01.2011 and order of sentence dated 22.01.2011 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri in case FIR No.49 dated 03.03.2010 under Sections 20 and 20-B of Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), registered at Police Station Sadhaura, the appellant has come up before this Court by filing the present appeal.

2 The case of the prosecution is that on 03.03.2010, the appellant was found to be in possession of 135 grams of charas. Pursuant thereto, vide order dated 19.01.2011 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, the appellant was convicted and vide order dated 22.01.2011 sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- and further in default thereof, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 19.01.2011 on merits and restricts his prayer qua modification of the order on quantum of sentence, to the period as already undergone by the appellant, as he has already undergone a sentence of 07 months and 28 days out of awarded sentence of four years. He further prays that since FIR in question pertains to the year 2010, a lenient view may be taken while passing an order on quantum by this Court.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the appellant by way of filing of custody certificate and submits that the Courts below has passed a well reasoned judgment based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record.

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

6. The appellant has been convicted for having in possession of 135 grams of charas attracting the offence of Section 20 of the Act, for which no minimum punishment has been prescribed. Moreover, the FIR in the present case pertains to the year 2010 and he has already faced the rigors of the trial for more than 15 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-Judge 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 that opportunities of reformation must be granted and such discretion is to be exercised by evaluating all attending circumstances of each case by noticing the nature of the crime, the manner, in which the crime was committed and conduct of the accused to strike a balance between the efficacy of law and the chances of reformation of the accused.

9. A perusal of the judgment of conviction passed by the learned