Bhura Singh Vs State of Haryana

The prayer in the present appeal is to set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.04.2008 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fatehabad 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 referred to as ‘NDPS Act’), in the case stemming from FIR No.84 dated 04.02.2003 registered under Section 15 of NDPS Act at Police Station Ratia, Fatehabad.

¶16

The appellant was sentenced for keeping in his possession 40 kgs of poppy husk, as mentioned below:

¶17

Offence	Sentence
Section 15(b) of NDPS Act,	Rigorous imprisonment for a period
1985	of four years and to pay fine of
	Rs.20,000/- and in default of
	payment of fine, to further undergo
	SI for 03 months.

¶18

SONIA BURA 2025.04.29 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

-2-

¶20

CRA-S-1080-SB-2008

¶21

Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 15.04.2008 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fatehabad on merits and restricts his prayer to modification of the order on quantum of sentence dated 15.04.2008 to that of sentence already undergone by the appellant. As per the custody certificate, the appellant has undergone a period of 01 year 02 months and 25 days.

¶22

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. Learned State counsel further submits that the appellant is involved in three more criminal cases and as such, he does not deserve any leniency.

¶23

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 40 kgs of poppy husk, which falls under the purview of Section 15 of NDPS Act. As per the custody certificate, the appellant has undergone a period of 01 year 02 months and 25 days out of total sentence of 04 years, in the instant case. The appellant is not involved in any other case registered under the NDPS Act. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Section 15 of NDPS Act, for the noncommercial 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.

¶24

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

¶25

SONIA BURA discretionary element is vested in the Court. Background of each case, which 2025.04.29 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶26

-3-

¶27

CRA-S-1080-SB-2008

¶28

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.

¶29

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 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.

¶30

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 04.02.2003 and the appellant has been suffering the agony of trial for last more than 22 years. Since his conviction, he has grown into law-abiding citizen and desires to live a peaceful life.

¶31

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

¶32

(i) The judgment dated 15.04.2008 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fatehabad is upheld.

¶33

SONIA BURA 2025.04.29 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶34

-4-

¶35

CRA-S-1080-SB-2008

¶36

(ii) The order of sentence dated 15.04.2008 is modified to the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for four years and fine of Rs.20,000/- along with default mechanism awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by him.

¶37

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶38

24.04.2025 sonia

¶39

(HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE

¶40

Whether speaking/non-speaking? Whether reportable?

¶41

Yes/No Yes/No

¶42

SONIA BURA 2025.04.29 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Bhura Singh v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhura Singh v. State of Haryana

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

Akash Singh Vs State of Punjab

Hashim Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Malkeet Singh and Others Vs State of Haryana and Another

Khataun Begam Alias Khatun Vs State of Punjab

Ajay Dev and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Kewal Singh and Anr. Vs State of Haryana