Disposed¶10

Bhola Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC7 May 2025CRA-S/141/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRA-S-141-SB-2009 (O&M); Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh; decided 07.05.2025; Justice Harpreet Singh Brar; NDPS Act Section 15; poppy husk 10 kg intermediate quantity; FIR No.118 dated 22.07.2005 PS Rampura; Special Court Bathinda conviction 12.12.2008 upheld; sentence reduced to period already undergone (03 months 26 days); no minimum punishment under S.15 NDPS Act; sentencing discretion/proportionality; relies on Deo Narain Mandal (2004) 7 SCC 257 and Ravada Sasikala AIR 2017 SC 1166; appeal disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Judgment of conviction dated 12.12.2008 upheld; order of sentence modified so that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine (with default mechanism) is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by the appellant; pending miscellaneous applications disposed of. ¶10

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶10

Issue for consideration

Whether the order on quantum of sentence imposed on the appellant should be modified to the sentence already undergone, the judgment of conviction not being assailed on merits. +1 more

¶3

Court's answer

Since no minimum punishment is prescribed under Section 15 of the NDPS Act for possession of 10 kgs of poppy husk (intermediate quantity), it would be in the interest of justice to reduce the sentence awarded to the appellant to the period already undergone by him.

¶5

Ratio / Principle

The judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court indicates no perversity and is based on correct appreciation of the evidence available on record; accordingly, the conviction is upheld.

¶8

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Harpreet Singh Brar J., oral judgment dated 07.05.2025) disposes of CRA-S-141-SB-2009 (O&M), arising from FIR No.118 dated 22.07.2005, PS Rampura, under Section 15 NDPS Act. By judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.12.2008, the learned Judge, Special Court, Bathinda had convicted the appellant, Bhola Singh, for possession of 10 kgs of poppy husk — an intermediate quantity — and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.1,000/- (default RI one month). Counsel for the appellant did not assail the conviction on merits and confined the prayer to modification of the quantum of sentence to the period already undergone (03 months and 26 days per custody certificate; appellant not involved in any other case). The Court found no perversity in the trial Court's findings and upheld the conviction; noting that Section 15 NDPS Act prescribes no minimum punishment for the intermediate quantity involved, and drawing on Deo Narain Mandal v. State of UP (2004) 7 SCC 257 (sentencing discretion governed by proportionality, gravity, manner of offence and age) and Ravada Sasikala v. State of AP AIR 2017 SC 1166 (balance between efficacy of law and chances of reformation), the Court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone. Pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.

¶1

CRA-S-141-SB-2009 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

1205

¶4

CRA-S-141-SB-2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 07.05.2025

Bhola Singh

....Appellant

Versus

State of Punjab

....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

¶11

Present: Mr. Davinder Kumar, Advocate for Mr. P.K.S. Phoolka, 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 12.12.2008 passed by learned Judge, Special Court, Bathinda 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.118 dated 22.07.2005 registered under Section 15 of the NDPS Act at Police Station Rampura.

¶15

The appellant was found in possession 10 Kgs of Poppy

¶16

Husk, for which he 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, 01 year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-
1985 and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 01 month.

¶18

MOHD YAKUB 2025.05.09 10:24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh

¶19

CRA-S-141-SB-2009 2

¶20

Learned counsel for the appellant contends that he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 12.12.2008 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 he has already undergone a period of 03 months and 26 days and is not involved in any other criminal activity.

¶21

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.

¶22

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 10 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 03 months and 26 days out of total sentence of 01 year, 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 him.

¶23

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

¶24

MOHD YAKUB 2025.05.09 10:24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh

¶25

CRA-S-141-SB-2009

¶26

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.

¶27

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.

¶28

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

¶29

MOHD YAKUB 2025.05.09 10:24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh

¶30

CRA-S-141-SB-2009 4

¶31

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.

¶32

The FIR in the present case was registered on 22.07.2005 and the appellant has been suffering the agony of trial since the last more than 19 years. Since his conviction, the appellant has grown into a law-abiding citizen and desires to live a peaceful life.

¶33

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

¶34

(i) The judgment of conviction dated 12.12.2008 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, Bathinda is upheld. (ii) The order of sentence dated 12.12.2008 is modified to the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of 01 year and fine along with default mechanism awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by him.

¶35