Gurmeet Kaur Vs State of Haryana

Th e prayer in the present appeal i s to set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 1 8 .05.2007 passed by learned Additional Ses s ions Judge, Fatehabad, whereb y the appellant was convicted and sentenced f or the offence punishable unde r Section 15(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Ps y chotropic Substances Act, 19 8 5 (hereinafter referred to as ‘NDPS Act’), in the case stemming from F IR No.36 dated 07.02.2005 registered unde r Section 15 of NDPS Act at Pol i ce Station Ratia.

¶14

The appe l lant was sentenced as mentione d below:

¶15

Offence	Sentence
Section 15 (b)of the Narcotic	Rigorous imprisonment for a period
Drugs and Psychotropic	ofone yearand to pay fine of
Substances Act, 1985	Rs.5,000 of fine, imprison /- and in default of payment to further undergo simple ment for 05 months.

¶16

MANISHA 2025.03.26 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment

¶17

CRA-S-1176-SB-2007

¶18

2

¶19

Br i ef facts of the case are that on 07.02.2005 at about 9:45 PM, ASI Jagdish Pr a sad along with other police offi c ials was present in the area of new bus stand, R atia in connection with patroll i ng. In the meantime, they saw the appellant, c a rrying a plastic bag upon her h ead and on suspicion, she was apprehended. U pon search of plastic bag, 1 0 Kgs of poppy husk was recovered. Sub s equently, FIR (supra) was regi s tered under Section 15 of the NDPS Act.

¶20

Le a rned Counsel for the appellant s ubmits that he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 1 8.05.2007 passed by learned Additional Ses s ions Judge, Fatehabad on me r its and restricts his prayer to modification of the order on quantum of sente n ce dated 18.05.2007 to that of sentence alread y undergone by the appellant a s she has already undergone actual custody p eriod of 04 months and 26 da y s, out of total sentence of one year imposed u p on her and she is not involved i n any other case. 5. 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, she 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 10 kgs of poppy husk, which falls under the purview of S ection 15 NDPS Act. As per h e r custody certificate, she is not involved in any other case and has already und e rgone a total custody period of 04 months and 26 days, out of total sentence o f one year, in the instant case. Since there is n o minimum punishment presc r ibed under Section 15 NDPS

¶22

MANISHA 2025.03.26 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment

¶23

CRA-S-1176-SB-2007

¶24

3

¶25

Act, for the no n -commercial quantity this Cour t is of the opinion that it would be in the intere s t of justice, if the sentence awa r ded to the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by her.

¶26

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

¶27

MANISHA 2025.03.26 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment

¶28

CRA-S-1176-SB-2007

¶29

4

¶30

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 07.02.2005 and the ap p ellant has been suffering the agony of trial f o r last more than 20 years. Sinc e her conviction, she has grown into law-abidin g citizen and desires to live a pe a ceful life. 10. Th e refore, in view of the discus s ion above, present appeal is disposed of in t h e following terms:-

¶31

(i) The judgment dated 18.05. 2 007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fateha b ad is upheld.

¶32

(ii) The order of sentence of even d ate 18.05.2007 is modified to the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 01 year an d fine of Rs.5,000/- along with d efault mechanism awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period of sentence already un d ergone by her.

¶33

March 24, manisha	2025	(H ARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE
	(i)	Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
	(ii)	Whether reportable Yes/No

¶34

MANISHA 2025.03.26 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment

Gurmeet Kaur v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurmeet Kaur 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

Jagbir @ Jaggu Vs St. of Hy.

Kirpal Chand Alias Nikka Vs State of Punjab

Satnam Singh Alias Shama Vs State of Punjab

Tripta Khullar Vs State of Haryana and Others

Ashif Ali @ Ashiq Vs State of Haryana

Ajay Sharma Vs State of Punjab and Others