Disposed¶28

Ashok Kumar @ Raju v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC5 May 2025CRA-S/1052/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NDPS Act S.21 sentence modification; 200 grams Smack non-commercial quantity; reduce sentence to period already undergone; custody certificate 03 months 29 days; conviction upheld, no perversity; Special Court Jalandhar; FIR No.136 dated 12.07.2006 PS Division No.8 Jalandhar; proportionality and reformation in sentencing; Deo Narain Mandal (2004) 7 SCC 257; Ravada Sasikala AIR 2017 SC 1166; CRA-S Punjab and Haryana High Court; fine Rs.1,000 with default clause.

What did the court decide?

Judgment of conviction upheld; order of sentence modified — rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.1,000/- (with default clause) reduced to the period of sentence already undergone (03 months and 29 days per custody certificate). ¶28

Ashok Kumar @ Raju Vs State of Punjab — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the order on quantum of sentence dated 17.03.2009 should be modified to the sentence already undergone by the appellant, the conviction under Section 21 NDPS Act not being assailed on merits. +1 more

¶17

Court's answer

The judgment of conviction dated 17.03.2009 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, Jalandhar is upheld; the trial Court's findings indicate no perversity and are based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

Since no minimum punishment is prescribed under Section 21 of NDPS Act for the non-commercial quantity, and the appellant has undergone 03 months and 29 days without involvement in any other case, it would be in the interest of justice to reduce the sentence awarded to the period already undergone.

¶19

Key takeaways

The order of sentence dated 17.03.2009 is modified to the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.1,000/- along with the default mechanism is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by the appellant.ratio¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRA-S-1052-SB-2009 (High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh; Harpreet Singh Brar, J.; decided 05.05.2025) — Ashok Kumar @ Raju v. State of Punjab. The appellant, convicted by the Judge, Special Court, Jalandhar (judgment and order of sentence dated 17.03.2009) under S.21 NDPS Act for keeping 200 grams of Smack in possession (FIR No.136 dated 12.07.2006, PS Division No.8, Jalandhar) and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.1,000/- (default: further RI six months), did not assail the conviction on merits and confined his prayer to modification of the quantum of sentence to the period already undergone (03 months and 29 days per custody certificate; not involved in any other case). Held: the judgment of conviction is upheld, the trial Court's findings showing no perversity; since no minimum punishment is prescribed under S.21 NDPS Act for the non-commercial quantity, the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone in the interest of justice, the Court taking into account the 18-year-old FIR and the appellant's conduct since conviction. Relied on Deo Narain Mandal v. State of U.P. (2004) 7 SCC 257 (sentencing is not a mere formality; discretion guided by gravity of offence, manner of commission, age of accused, and proportionality) and Ravada Sasikala v. State of A.P. AIR 2017 SC 1166 (deterrent purpose of sentence; opportunities of reformation). Appeal disposed of accordingly.

¶1

202 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CRA-S-1052-SB-2009 Date of decision: 05.05.2025

¶3

ASHOK KUMAR @ RAJU

...APPELLANT

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB

...RESPONDENT

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. S.S. Siao, Advocate for the ap p ellant.

¶9

Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab.

¶10

¶11

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

¶12

Th e prayer in the present appeal i s to set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.03. 2 009 passed by learned Judge, Special Court, J alandhar, whereby, the appella n t was convicted and sentenced for the offenc e punishable under Section 2 1 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic S u bstances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ‘NDPS Act’), in the case stem m ing from FIR No.136 dated 12.07.2006 registered under Section 21 of N D PS Act at Police Station Divis i on No.8, Jalandhar. 2. Th e appellant was sentenced for k eeping in his possession 200 grams of Smac k , as mentioned below:

¶13

Offence	Sentence
Section 21 of the Narcotic	Rigorous imprisonment for a period
Drugs and Psychotropic	of02 y earsand to pay fine of
Substances Act, 1985	Rs.1,000 of fine,t /- and in default of payment o further undergo RI for 06

¶14

MANISHA 2025.05.09 12:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment

¶15

CRA-S-1052-SB-2009 2

¶16

months.

¶17

Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 17.03.2009 passed by learned Judge, Special Court, Jalandhar on merits and restricts his prayer to modification of the order on quantum of sentence dated 17.03.2009 to that of sentence already undergone by the appellant. As per the custody certificate, the appellant has undergone a period of 03 months and 29 days and he is not involved in any other case.

¶18

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 as such, he does not deserve any leniency.

¶19

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 200 grams of Smack, which falls under the purview of Section 21 NDPS Act. As per the custody certificate, the appellant has undergone a period of 03 months and 29 days, out of total sentence of two years, in the instant case and he is not involved in any other case. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Section 21 of NDPS Act, for the non-commercial quantity 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.

¶20

In Deo Narain Mandal vs. State of U.P. (2004) 7 SCC 257 , the

¶21

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

¶22

MANISHA 2025.05.09 12:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment

¶23

CRA-S-1052-SB-2009 3

¶24

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.

¶25

Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravada Sasikala vs. State

¶26

of AP AIR 2017 SC 1166 , has reiterated 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 the conduct of the accused to strike a balance between the efficacy of law and the chances of reformation of the accused.

¶27

A perusal of the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court indicates no perversity in its findings and the same is based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record. However, the FIR ( supra ) was lodged on 12.07.2006 and the appellant has been suffering the agony of trial for last more than 18 years. Since his conviction, he has grown into law-abiding citizen and desires to live a peaceful life.

¶28

Therefore, in view of the discussion above, present appeal is disposed of in the following terms:-

¶29

MANISHA 2025.05.09 12:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment

¶30

CRA-S-1052-SB-2009 4

¶31

(i) The judgment dated 17.03.2009 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, Jalandhar is upheld.

¶32

(ii) The order of sentence dated 17.03.2009 is modified to the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.1,000/- along with default mechanism awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by him.

¶33

May 05, 2025 manisha	(HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE
(i)	Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
(ii)	Whether reportable Yes/No

¶34

MANISHA 2025.05.09 12:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment

Ashok Kumar @ Raju v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Kumar @ Raju v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Daljit Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Another

M/S Amsons Laboratories Private Limited Vs State of Punjab

Jasdeep Singh Alias Soni and Others Vs State of Punjab and Another

Mohinder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Ranjit Singh Alias Rana Vs State of Punjab

Chamba Singh Vs State of Punjab