Kikkar Singh Vs State of Pb.

1 . The prayer in the present appeal is to set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.05.2007 passed by learned Special Judge, Moga, whereby, the appellant was convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 15 (b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter ‘NDPS Act’), in the case stemming from FIR No.121 dated 31.08.2002, under Section 15 of the NDPS Act at Police Station Kot Ise Khan, District Moga.

¶12

2. The appellant was sentenced as mentioned below:

¶13

Offence	Sentence
Section 15 (b)of the Narcotic	Rigorous imprisonment for a period
Drugs and Psychotropic	ofthree yearsand to pay fine of
Substances Act, 1985	Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.

¶14

Brief facts of the case are that on 31.08.2002, a police party

¶15

including SI/SHO Kirpal Singh and ASI Harjit Singh was on patrolling duty and when they reached near bridge of canal on a link road leading from village

¶16

Galoti to Khosa Kotla, they saw the appellant carrying a bag on his head and on Neha 2025.03.24 16:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

CRA-S-1054-SB-2007

¶18

-2-

¶19

the basis of suspicion, he was nabbed. In the meanwhile, private witness, namely, Sewak Singh, also arrived there. The accused/appellant was apprehended with 30 Kg 250 grams of Poppy Husk and sample of 250 grams was drawn from the bag and then the same was sent to the chemical analyst. Subsequently, FIR (supra) was registered under Section 15 of the NDPS Act.

¶20

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Court below has fallen into grave error in convicting the appellant, as his guilt has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is contended that there is violation of Section 57 of the NDPS Act and the linking evidence is also missing. Further, there was also an unexplained delay of 09 days in sending the sample of the alleged contraband to the FSL. The alleged independent witness Sewak Singh has not been examined and that there are major discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses who have been examined by the prosecution. He further contends that he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 14.05.2007 on merits and restricts his prayer to modification of the order on quantum of sentence, to that of the sentence already undergone by the appellant, as he has already undergone total sentence of 07 months and 11 days in custody.

¶21

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.

¶22

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record with their able assistance, it transpires that the appellant was convicted

¶23

Neha 2025.03.24 16:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶24

CRA-S-1054-SB-2007

¶25

-3-

¶26

for being in possession of 30 kg 250 grams of Poppy Husk, i.e. intermediate quantity, attracting the offence of Section 15 NDPS Act, for which no minimum punishment has been prescribed. As per his custody certificate, he has already undergone total sentence of 07 months and 11 days out of total sentence of 03 years, in the instant case. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Section 15 NDPS Act, 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.

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

Neha 2025.03.24 16:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶30

CRA-S-1054-SB-2007 -4-

¶31

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.

¶32

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 31.08.2002 and the appellant has been suffering the agony of trial for last more than 22 years. Since his conviction, he has grown into a law-abiding citizen and desires to live a peaceful life.

¶33

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

¶34

(i) The judgment dated 14.05.2007 passed by the learned Special Judge, Moga, is upheld.

¶35

(ii) The order of sentence dated 14.05.2007 is modified to the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 03 years with fine of Rs.5,000/- along with default mechanism awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by him.

¶36

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand

¶37

disposed of.

¶38

(HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE

¶39

20.03.2025 Neha Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶40

Neha 2025.03.24 16:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Kikkar Singh v. State of Pb.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kikkar Singh v. State of Pb.

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

Sachin Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Harinder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Santosh and Another Vs State of Haryana and Others

Jagtar Singh Vs State of Punjab

Surjit Singh Vs State of Pb.

Sita Singh Vs State of Haryana