Partly allowed¶28

Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC3 Apr 2025CRA-S/116/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NDPS Section 15(b) poppy husk 33 kgs; sentence reduction to period undergone (10 months 17 days); conviction upheld, no minimum punishment under Section 15 for non-commercial quantity; relied on Deo Narain Mandal (2004) 7 SCC 257 and Ravada Sasikala AIR 2017 SC 1166; FIR No.123 dt.16.09.2003 PS Sangat Bathinda; Special Court Bathinda judgment/order 21.08.2007; fine Rs.5,000/-.

What did the court decide?

Order of sentence dated 21.08.2007 modified: rigorous imprisonment of four years and fine of Rs.5,000/- along with default mechanism reduced to the period of sentence already undergone; judgment of conviction dated 21.08.2007 upheld. ¶28

Balbir Singh Vs State of Punjab — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the order of sentence dated 21.08.2007 (rigorous imprisonment for four years and fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 15(b) NDPS Act) should be modified to the sentence already undergone by the appellant, the conviction not being assailed on merits.

¶19

Court's answer

Judgment of conviction upheld: perusal of the trial Court's judgment indicates no perversity in its findings and it is based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

In the interest of justice, the sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶21

Key takeaways

No minimum punishment is prescribed under Section 15 NDPS Act for the non-commercial quantity, which permitted reduction of the sentence.ratio¶21
Per the custody certificate, the appellant had undergone 10 months and 17 days of the total four-year sentence and was not involved in any other case; together with more than 21 years having elapsed since the FIR and his post-conviction conduct as a law-abiding citizen desiring a peaceful life, this supported the reduction of sentence.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRA-S-116-SB-2008 | High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh | Decided 03.04.2025 | Harpreet Singh Brar, J. (Oral) | Balbir Singh @ Pappu (appellant) v. State of Punjab. The appellant stood convicted under Section 15(b) of the NDPS Act, 1985 for possession of 33 kgs of poppy husk (FIR No.123 dated 16.09.2003, PS Sangat, District Bathinda) by judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.08.2007 of the Judge, Special Court, Bathinda, sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for four years and fine of Rs.5,000/- with default rigorous imprisonment of 06 months. Learned counsel for the appellant did not assail the conviction on merits and restricted the prayer to modification of the quantum of sentence to that already undergone; per the custody certificate he had undergone 10 months and 17 days and was not involved in any other case. Relying on Deo Narain Mandal vs. State of U.P., (2004) 7 SCC 257 and Ravada Sasikala vs. State of AP, AIR 2017 SC 1166 on proportionate sentencing and opportunities of reformation, and observing that no minimum punishment is prescribed under Section 15 NDPS Act for non-commercial quantity, the Court found no perversity in the trial Court's conviction, upheld it, and reduced the sentence to the period already undergone; the appeal stood disposed of in those terms.

¶1

790 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CRA-S-116-SB-2008 Date of decision: 03.04.2025

¶3

BALBIR SINGH @ PAPPU

...APPELLANT

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB

...RESPONDENT

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

¶9

Present: Mr. Ashish Grover, Advocate for t h e appellant.

¶10

Mr. Nitesh Sharma, DAG, Punjab.

¶11

¶12

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

¶13

Th e prayer in the present appeal i s to set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.08. 2 007 passed by learned Judge, Special Court, B athinda, whereby the appellan t was convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 15 ( b) 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.123 dated 16.09.2003 registered under Section 15 of N D PS Act at Police Station Sang a t, District Bathinda. 2. Th e appellant was sentenced for k e eping in his possession 33 kgs.

¶14

of Poppy Husk, as mentioned below:

¶15

Offence	Sentence
Section 15 Drugs (b)of the Narcotic and Psychotropic	Rigorous offour imprisonment for a period yearsand to pay fine of
Substances Act, 1985	Rs.5,000 of fine,t months. /- and in default of payment o further undergo RI for 06

¶16

MANISHA 2025.04.04 18:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment

¶17

CRA-S-116-SB-2008

¶18

¶19

Le a rned Counsel for the appellant s ubmits that he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 2 1.08.2007 passed by learned Judge, Special Court, Bathinda on merits and restricts his prayer to modification of the order on quantum of sente n ce dated 21.08.2007 to that of sentence alread y undergone by the appellant. A s per the custody certificate, the appellant h a s undergone a period of 10 mo n ths and 17 days and he is not involved in any other case.

¶20

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.

¶21

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 33 kgs of P oppy Husk, which falls under the purview o f Section 15 NDPS Act. As p e r the custody certificate, the appellant has u ndergone a period of 10 mo n ths and 17 days out of total sentence of fou r years and he is not involved i n any other case. Since there is no minimum p u nishment prescribed under Sect i on 15 NDPS Act, for the noncommercial qu a ntity this Court is of the opinio n that it would be in the interest of justice, if th e sentence awarded to the app e llant is reduced to the period already underg o ne by him. 6. In Deo Narain Mandal vs. State of U.P. (2004) 7 SCC 257 , the

¶22

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

¶23

MANISHA 2025.04.04 18:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment

¶24

CRA-S-116-SB-2008

¶25

¶26

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.

¶27

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

¶28

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 record. However, the FIR ( supra ) was lo d ged on 16.09.2003 and the ap p ellant has been suffering the agony of trial f o r last more than 21 years. Sinc e his conviction, he has grown into law-abidin g citizen and desires to live a pe a ceful life. 9. Th e refore, in view of the discus s ion above, present appeal is disposed of in t h e following terms:-

¶29

MANISHA 2025.04.04 18:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment

¶30

CRA-S-116-SB-2008

¶31

¶32

(i) The judgment dated 21.08.200 7 passed by the learned Judge, Sp e cial Court, Bathinda is upheld.

¶33

(ii) The order of sentence of even d ate 21.08.2007 is modified to the extent that the sentence of ri g orous imprisonment for four 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.

¶34

(HARPREET SINGH BRAR) April 03, 2025 JUDGE manisha (i) Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No (ii) Whether reportable Yes/No

¶35

MANISHA 2025.04.04 18:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment

Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balbir Singh 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

Gurdev Singh Alias Baldev Singh Alias Deba Vs State of Punjab

Vishal Khanna Vs State of Punjab

Gurpreet Alias Kalu Vs State of Haryana

Harkamal Singh Vs State of Punjab

Heera Lal Vs State of Haryana and Others

Angrej Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab