Disposed¶38

Jogindero v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC7 May 2025CRA-S/135/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NDPS Act S.15; 30 Kgs Poppy Husk; intermediate quantity; no minimum punishment; sentence reduced to period already undergone (02 months 21 days); conviction upheld; quantum of sentence; sentencing discretion and reformation; Deo Narain Mandal (2004) 7 SCC 257; Ravada Sasikala AIR 2017 SC 1166; FIR No.390 dated 14.11.2003 PS Banga; Special Court Nawanshahr; Punjab & Haryana High Court CRA-S-135-SB-2009.

What did the court decide?

Appeal disposed of: conviction upheld; order of sentence dated 10.01.2009 modified so that rigorous imprisonment of 03 years and fine with default mechanism is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone (02 months and 21 days); pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also disposed of. ¶38

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether the order of sentence (rigorous imprisonment for 03 years and fine of Rs.3,000/- with default clause) awarded to the appellant under Section 15 NDPS Act should be modified to the sentence already undergone, the judgment of conviction itself not being assailed on merits.

¶21

Court's answer

Since the appellant was convicted for possession of 30 Kgs of Poppy Husk, i.e. intermediate quantity, attracting Section 15 of the NDPS Act for which no minimum punishment is prescribed, and she has already undergone 02 months and 21 days of the 03-year sentence with no involvement in any other case, the sentence awarded is reduced to the period already undergone.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

The judgment of conviction dated 10.01.2009 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, Nawanshahr is upheld; the trial Court's findings show no perversity and are based on correct appreciation of evidence.

¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab and Haryana High Court (Harpreet Singh Brar J., oral, 07.05.2025) disposes of CRA-S-135-SB-2009: conviction of the appellant under Section 15 NDPS Act (possession of 30 Kgs Poppy Husk, intermediate quantity) by the Special Court, Nawanshahr (judgment dated 10.01.2009) is upheld as free from perversity, but the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 03 years and fine of Rs.3,000/- with default clause is reduced to the period already undergone (02 months and 21 days), since no minimum punishment is prescribed under Section 15 NDPS Act for intermediate quantity and the appellant is not involved in any other case. Reliance placed on Deo Narain Mandal v. State of UP, (2004) 7 SCC 257 (three-Judge Bench) and Ravada Sasikala v. State of AP, AIR 2017 SC 1166 (two-Judge Bench) on proportionate sentencing and reformation.

¶1

CRA-S-135-SB-2009 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

1204

¶4

CRA-S-135-SB-2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 07.05.2025

Jogindero @ Gindo

....Appellant

Versus

State of Punjab

....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

¶11

Present: Mr. D.N. Ganeriwala, Advocate for the appellant.

¶12

Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG, Punjab.

¶13

HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)

¶14

The prayer in the present appeal is to set-aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.01.2009 passed by learned Judge, Special Court, Nawanshahr whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter ‘the NDPS Act’), in the case stemming from FIR No.390 dated 14.11.2003 registered under Section 15 of the NDPS Act at Police Station Banga.

¶15

The appellant was found in possession 30 Kgs of Poppy

¶16

Husk, for which she was convicted and sentenced as follows:

¶17

Offence Sentence
Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs Rigorous imprisonment for a period of
and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 03 years and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 03 months.

¶18

MOHD YAKUB 2025.05.09 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh

¶19

CRA-S-135-SB-2009

¶20

¶21

Learned counsel for the appellant contends that he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 10.01.2009 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 she has already undergone a period of 02 months and 21 days and is not involved in any other criminal activity.

¶22

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 as such, the appellant 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 30 Kgs of Poppy Husk, i.e. intermediate quantity, attracting the offence of Section 15 of the NDPS Act, for which no minimum punishment has been prescribed. As per custody certificate, the appellant is not involved in any other case and has already undergone an actual sentence of 02 months and 21 days out of total sentence of 03 years, in the instant case. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Section 15 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 her.

¶24

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

¶25

MOHD YAKUB 2025.05.09 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh

¶26

CRA-S-135-SB-2009

¶27

¶28

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.

¶29

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.

¶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. Learned

¶31

MOHD YAKUB 2025.05.09 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh

¶32

CRA-S-135-SB-2009

¶33

¶34

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.

¶35

The FIR in the present case was registered on 14.11.2003 and the appellant has been suffering the agony of trial since the last more than 21 years. Since her conviction, the appellant has grown into a law-abiding citizen and desires to live a peaceful life.

¶36

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

¶37

(i) The judgment of conviction dated 10.01.2009 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, Nawanshahr is upheld.

¶38

(ii) The order of sentence dated 10.01.2009 is modified to the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of 03 years and fine along with default mechanism awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by her.

¶39