Angrej Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Th e prayer in the present appeal i s to set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.01. 2 008 passed by learned Judge, Special Court, B athinda whereby the appellant s were convicted and sentenced for the offenc e punishable under Section 1 5 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic S u bstances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ‘NDPS Act’), in the case stemm i ng from FIR No.90 dated 05.0 7 .2003 registered under Section 15 of NDPS Ac t at Police Station Dialpura.

¶14

Th e appellants were sentenced fo r keeping in possession 30 kgs

¶15

of Poppy Husk, as mentioned below:

¶16

Offence	Sentence
Section 15 of the Narcotic	Rigorous imprisonment for a period
Drugs Substances and Psychotropic Act, 1985	of03 ye Rs.3,000 payment RI for 02 ars eachand to pay fine of /- each and in default of of fine, to further undergo months each.

¶17

MANISHA 2025.04.04 18:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment

¶18

CRA-S-139-SB-2008

¶19

2

¶20

Le a rned Counsel for the appellants submits that he is not assailing the i m pugned judgment of convictio n dated 03.01.2008 passed by learned Judge, S pecial Court, Bathinda on merits and restricts his prayer to modification of the order on quantum of sente n ce dated 03.01.2008 to that of sentence alread y undergone by the appellants. A s per the custody certificates, the appellants h ave undergone a period of mo r e than 06 months and are not involved in any other case.

¶21

Pe r contra , learned State couns e l opposes the prayer of the appellants as t h e learned Court below has pa s sed a well-reasoned judgment based on correc t appreciation of evidence avail a ble on record as such, they do not deserve any leniency.

¶22

Ha v ing heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record wit h their able assistance, it trans p ires that the appellants were convicted for b e ing in possession of 30 kgs of P oppy Husk, which falls under the purview of Section 15 NDPS Act. As per their custody certificates, the appellant-Angr e j Singh has undergone a perio d of 06 months and 18 days and the appellant-R a njit Singh has undergone a pe r iod of 06 months and 16 days and they are not involved in any other case . Since there is no minimum punishment pre s cribed under Section 15 NDP S Act, for the non-commercial quantity this Court is of the opinion that it woul d be in the interest of justice, if the sentence a w arded to the appellants is r e duced to the period already undergone by t h em.

¶23

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

¶24

MANISHA 2025.04.04 18:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment

¶25

CRA-S-139-SB-2008

¶26

3

¶27

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.

¶28

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.

¶29

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 05.07.2003 and the app e llants have been suffering the agony of trial fo r last more than 21 years. Si n ce their conviction, they have grown into law-abiding citizens and desire to li v e a peaceful life.

¶30

MANISHA 2025.04.04 18:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment

¶31

CRA-S-139-SB-2008

¶32

4

¶33

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

¶34

(i) The judgment dated 03.01.200 8 passed by the learned Judge, Sp e cial Court, Bathinda is upheld.

¶35

(ii) The order of sentence of even d ate i.e. 03.01.2008 is modified to t he extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 03 ye a rs each and fine of Rs.3,0 0 0/- each along with default me c hanism awarded to the appell a nts is reduced to the period of se n tence already undergone by the m .

¶36

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

¶37

MANISHA 2025.04.04 18:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment

Angrej Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Angrej Singh and Anr. 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

Balbir Singh Vs State of Punjab