IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

235 Date of decision: 13.11.2025 IQBAL SINGH ......Petitioner VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB .......Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ *****

Present: - Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Mohit Kapoor, Senior DAG, Punjab.

*****

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)

1. This is an appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.04.2012 passed by the Judge, Special Court, Sri Muktsar Sahib whereby the appellants has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of three months and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- for commission of offence under Sections 15 of the N.D.P.S. Act in case bearing FIR No. 21 dated 15.07.2008 registered under Section 15 of the NDPS Act at Police Station GRP Abohar.

2. As per the case of the prosecution, on 15.07.2008 at approximately 14:15 hours, Train No. 336 DN arrived from the Sri Ganganagar side. The police thereafter commenced checking of passengers near the engine portion of the train. During this process, one individual (the appellant herein) alighted from the train carrying a black raxine bag slung over his right shoulder. On account of suspicion, the Investigating Officer apprehended the appellant and inquired about his identity and antecedents. Upon conducting a search of the bag in his possession, it was found to contain poppy husk, with the total recovery weighing 5 kilograms 250 grams. From this recovered contraband, 250 grams were separated as a sample and duly converted into a sealed parcel. The appellant was thereafter formally arrested. 3. Upon receipt of the report of the Chemical Examiner and consequent completion of the investigation, the challan against the appellant was presented before the competent Court. Copies of the same were supplied to the appellant as per laws.

4. After the parties led their respective evidence and upon conclusion of the trial, the appellant was held guilty and sentenced accordingly by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereof, the present appeal has been instituted.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the suspension of sentence of the appellants had been allowed vide orders dated 11.05.2012. There is no other criminal case registered against the appellant and he does not want to challenge the judgment on merits. He has confined his prayer and arguments only to the quantum of sentence. Hence the factual aspects of the case on merits are not being delved into at this stage. The following mitigating circumstances are pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner:

i) The incident in question pertains to the year 2008 and already a period of 17 years elapsed. The appellant has faced agony of protracted criminal proceedings for more than 17 years.

ii) There is no record of the petitioner having been involved in any other similar criminal offence, either during the pendency or after the trial of the present case, indicating that the petitioner has reformed himself and has successfully reintegrated into the mainstream of society. There is nothing on record to suggest any probability of reoffending.

iii) The petitioner is nearly 73 years old and the same constitutes a compelling consideration favouring leniency, especially where continued incarceration would serve no productive purpose.

iv) The petitioner was a poor person and sole breadwinner of the family.

6. On the other hand, the learned State counsel, while opposing the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, has argued that the prosecution has successfully established the guilt of the petitioner through cogent, reliable, and convincing evidence brought on record during trial. It is further contended that the offence committed by the petitioner is of a serious nature and, therefore, calls for imposition of a stringent sentence. The learned State counsel submits that leniency in such cases would send a wrong signal to society and undermine the administration of criminal justice. Hence, it is imper