Satish Kumar @ Sheetu Vs State of Punjab

The prayer in the present appeal is to set-aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.01.2009 passed by learned Judge, Special Court, Bathinda whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter ‘the NDPS Act’), in the case stemming from FIR No.64 dated 14.06.2006 registered under Section 21 of the NDPS Act at Police Station Maur.

¶15

The appellant was found in possession 50 gms of Smack,

¶16

for which he was convicted and sentenced as follows:

¶17

Offence Sentence
Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs Rigorous imprisonment for a period of
and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 02 years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 01 month.

¶18

MOHD YAKUB 2025.05.19 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh

¶19

CRA-S-1110-SB-2009 2

¶20

Learned counsel for the appellant contends that he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 06.01.2009 on merits and restricts his prayer qua modification of the order on quantum of sentence, to that of the sentence already undergone by the appellant, as he has already undergone a period of 07 months and 19 days.

¶21

Per contra , learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the appellant on the ground that the learned Court below has passed a wellreasoned judgment based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record and the appellant is involved in one more case i.e. FIR 43 dated 27.05.2007, registered under Section 21 of the NDPS Act at Police Station Maur, 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 for being in possession of 50 gms of Smack, i.e. intermediate quantity, attracting the offence of Section 21 of the NDPS Act, for which no minimum punishment has been prescribed. As per custody certificate, the appellant has already undergone an actual sentence of 07 months and 19 days out of total sentence of 02 years, in the instant case. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Section 21 of the 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.

¶23

In Deo Narain Mandal Vs. State of UP, (2004) 7 SCC 257 , a three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has opined that

¶24

MOHD YAKUB 2025.05.19 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh

¶25

CRA-S-1110-SB-2009

¶26

3

¶27

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, the 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, a two-Judge Bench of 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 conduct of the accused to strike a balance between the efficacy of law and the chances of reformation of the accused.

¶29

7.1. Further, the primary consideration in matters where the appellant is involved in other NDPS cases ought to be the severity of the offence. Moreover, the Co-ordinate benches of this Court have deemed it

¶30

MOHD YAKUB 2025.05.19 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh

¶31

CRA-S-1110-SB-2009 4

¶32

appropriate to reduce the sentence imposed upon the accused to be the custody already undergone by them, in spite of their involvement in other cases pertaining to the NDPS Act in Pritam Singh @ Preeti vs. State of Punjab in CRA-S-1769-SB-2010 decided on 03.04.2025, Ram Lal vs. State of Haryana in CRA-S-986-SB-2005 decided on 11.05.2018 , Raj Pal vs. State of Haryana in CRA-S-68-SB-2005 decided on 28.04.2023, Raj Pal vs. State of Haryana in CRA-S-34-SB-2005 decided on 28.04.2023 and Gurmail Singh and others vs. State of Punjab in CRA-S1976-SB-2007 decided on 28.03.2025.

¶33

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. Learned counsel for the appellant has not assailed the judgment of conviction on merits, rather restricted the prayer only qua modification of quantum of sentence to that of the sentence already undergone by the appellant.

¶34

The FIR in the present case was registered on 14.06.2006 and the appellant has been suffering the agony of trial since the last more than 18 years. Since his conviction, the appellant has grown into a law-abiding citizen and desires to live a peaceful life.

¶35

Consequently, the present appeal is disposed of in the following terms:-

¶36

(i) The judgment of conviction dated 06.01.2009 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, Bathinda is upheld. (ii) The order of sentence dated 06.01.2009 is modified to the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of 02 years and fine along with default

¶37

MOHD YAKUB 2025.05.19 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh

¶38

CRA-S-1110-SB-2009

¶39

5

¶40

mechanism awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by him.

¶41