IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 12.05.2026.

Savinder Singh ...Appellant.

Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent.

***

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR .......

Present: Mr. D.S. Randhawa, Advocate and Mr. A.S. Manaise, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Sulinder Kumar, DAG, Haryana.

***

SUKHVINDER KAUR , J .

By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment of conviction dated 06.10.2025 and order of sentence dated 13.10.2025 passed by learned Special Judge/ Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, vide which the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years along with fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 15(b) of NDPS Act and in default of payment of fine to further undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years along with fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 25 of NDPS Act and in default of payment of fine to further undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months, in case FIR No.636 dated 04.11.2022, under Sections 15 and 25 of NDPS Act registered at Police Station City, Bhiwani.

2. Today, the case was listed for hearing, only on the application for suspension of sentence i.e. CRM-18208-2026. However, on oral prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant-appellant, the main appeal i.e. CRA-S-3338-2025, which stands admitted vide order dated 30.10.2025 passed by this Court, is taken on board today itself for hearing.

2. Brief facts of this case are that the aforesaid FIR was registered against the appellant when he was apprehended by the police officials and 5.578 Kg poppy straw (Bhukki) was recovered from him, which falls in intermediate quantity. He failed to produce any license regarding the conscious possession of the same. The investigation was completed and challan was presented. After trial, the appellant was convicted and sentenced as stated above by the trial Court, hence this appeal has been filed by the appellant, challenging his conviction and sentence.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that he does not want to challenge the conviction of the appellant on merits but as far as sentence part is concerned, he prays that the same may be reduced to that of already undergone by the appellant. He has submitted that the FIR in present case pertains to the year 2022 and the appellant has already undergone the actual sentence of 06 months and 28 days of the total awarded sentence of five years by the trial Court. He has submitted that as such a lenient view be taken and the sentence awarded be reduced to that of already undergone.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent State submitted that well-reasoned judgment has been passed by the Court below, based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record and the applicant-

appellant does not deserve any leniency.

5. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the record has been meticulously examined with their able assistance.

6. Since the appellant has not challenged the judgment of conviction on merits, as such the said issues are not being gone into at this stage and it is being restricted to the issue pertaining to sentencing and quantum of punishment.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Pramod Kumar Mishra Vs. State of UP (2023) 9 SCC 810, observed that punishment must not be viewed as an act of vengeance but as a means of reformation and reintegration of the offender into society. It was further held that an appropriate sentence must be determined by considering a range of factors, including the nature and circumstances of the offence, the offender’s background, age, mental and emotional condition, potential for rehabilitation, prior criminal record, and the deterrent needs of the community. Sentencing, the Court noted, involves a delicate exercise of judicial discretion where multiple social, psychological, and moral factors mus