Surjit Singh Vs State of Pb.

Th e prayer in the present appeal i s to set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.05. 2 007 passed by learned Judge, Special Court, Tarn Taran, District Tarn Tar a n whereby the appellant was convicted and s entenced for the offence punis h able under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances A ct, 1985 (hereinafter ‘NDPS Act’), in the ca s e stemming from FIR No.172 d a ted 19.10.2003, under Section 15 of the NDPS Act at Police Station Bhikhiwi n d.

¶14

Th e appellant was sentenced as me n tioned below:

¶15

Offence	Sentence
Section 15 Drugs of the Narcotic and Psychotropic	Rigorous oftwo imprisonment for a period yearsand to pay fine of
Substances Act, 1985	Rs.5,000 of fine, /- and in default of payment to further undergo rigorous
	imprison ment for one month.

¶16

Br i ef facts of the case are that on 19.10.2003, ASI Jagtar Singh

¶17

along with poli c e companions was going from v illage Ghurak Wind to village Kacha Pacca i n connection with patrolling. W hen they reached at bridge of

¶18

MANISHA 2025.03.21 16:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment

¶19

CRA-S-1151-SB-2007

¶20

2

¶21

canal minor in t h e area of village Kacha Pacca, a ppellant having a jhola plastic hanging on his left shoulder, was coming fr o m front side. On seeing the police, he per p lexed and stopped. On the basis of suspicion, he was apprehended a n d upon search of jhola plastic bag, 5 kgs of popy husk was recovered. Sub s equently, FIR (supra) was regi s tered under Section 15 of the

¶22

NDPS Act.

¶23

Le a rned amicus curiae for the ap p ellant inter alia contends that there is non-co m pliance of mandatory provisio n s of Section 50 of NDPS Act and the appell a nt was not made aware of his legal rights to get his search conducted in th e presence of Gazetted Officer o r Magistrate. He submits that the independen t witness, who was joined duri n g the course of investigation, was not exam i ned by the prosecution. Fu r ther, the entire case of the prosecution is based upon the testimonies o f official witnesses and their statements are d iscrepant to the material poi n ts and are not worthy of any reliance. Lastly , he submits that the appellant has already undergone actual custody period o f 05 months and 21 days in cus t ody and is not involved in any other criminal c a se.

¶24

Pe r contra , learned State couns e l opposes the prayer of the appellant as th e learned Court below has pas s ed a well-reasoned judgment based on correc t appreciation of evidence avail a ble on record as such, he does not deserve any leniency.

¶25

Ha v ing heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record wit h their able assistance, it transpires that the appellant was convicted for b e ing in possession of 5 kgs. of P oppy Husk, which falls under the purview of S ection 15 NDPS Act. As per his custody certificate, he is not

¶26

MANISHA 2025.03.21 16:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment

¶27

CRA-S-1151-SB-2007

¶28

3

¶29

involved in any other case and has already und e rgone an actual sentence of 05 months and 21 d ays out of total sentence of 02 y ears, in the instant case. Since there is no min i mum punishment prescribed u n der Section 15 NDPS Act, for the non-comme r cial quantity, this Court is of t he opinion that it would be in the interest of j u stice, if the sentence awarded t o the appellant is reduced to the period already u ndergone by him.

¶30

In Deo Narain Mandal vs. State of U.P. (2004) 7 SCC 257 , the Hon'ble Supre m e Court has opined that awar d ing of sentence is not a mere formality in c r iminal cases. When a mini m um and maximum term is prescribed by t h e statute with regard to the per i od of sentence, a discretionary element is ves t ed in the Court. Background of each case, which includes factors like gra v ity of the offence, manner in w h ich the offence is committed, age of the acc u sed, should be considered whi l e determining the quantum of sentence and th i s discretion is not to be used a r bitrarily or whimsically. After assessing all re l evant factors, proper sentence should be awarded bearing in mind the prin c iple of proportionality to e n sure the sentence is neither excessively har s h nor does it come across as lenient. 8. Fu r ther, the Hon'ble Supreme Cou r t in Ravada Sasikala vs. State of AP AIR 2017 SC 1166 , has reiterated that t h e imposition of sentence also serves a social p urpose as it acts as a deterrent by making the accused realise the damage cau s ed not only to the victim but also to the society at large. The law in this reg a rd is well settled that opport u nities of reformation must be granted and su c h discretion is to be exercis e d by evaluating all attending circumstances o f each case by noticing the nat u re of the crime, the manner in which the crim e was committed and the con d uct of the accused to strike a

¶31

MANISHA 2025.03.21 16:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment

¶32

CRA-S-1151-SB-2007

¶33

4

¶34

balance betwee n the efficacy of law and the c hances of reformation of the accused.

¶35

A p erusal of the judgment of co n viction passed by the learned trial Court indi c ates no perversity in its findi n gs and the same is based on correct appreci a tion of evidence available on re c ord. However, the FIR (supra) was lodged on 19.10.2003 and the appellant h a s been suffering the agony of trial for last mo r e than 21 years. Since his conviction, he has grown into a lawabiding citizen a nd desires to live a peaceful lif e .

¶36

Th e refore, in view of the discus s ion above, present appeal is disposed of in t h e following terms:-

¶37

(i) The judgment dated 24.05.200 7 passed by the learned Judge, Sp e cial Court, Tarn Taran is uphel d . (ii) The order of sentence of even d ate i.e. 24.05.2007 is modified to t he extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 02 ye a rs and fine of Rs.5,000/- al o ng with default mechanism aw a rded to the appellant is redu c ed to the period of sentence alr e ady undergone by him. 11. Pe n ding miscellaneous applicatio n (s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶38

Th e High Court Legal Services Authority is directed to pay remuneration to the learned Amicus Curiae as p e r rules.

¶39

(HARPREET SINGH BRAR) March 20, 2025 JUDGE manisha (i) Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No (ii) Whether reportable Yes/No

¶40

MANISHA 2025.03.21 16:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment

Surjit Singh v. State of Pb.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surjit 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

Kikkar Singh Vs State of Pb.

Sita Singh Vs State of Haryana