Raju @ Rajinder Vs State of Haryana

1 . The prayer in the present appeal is to set aside the judgment of conviction dated 06.05.2009 and order of sentence dated 11.05.2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, whereby, the appellant was convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter ‘NDPS Act’), in the case stemming from FIR No.202 dated 03.07.2007, under Sections 17/18/61/85 of the NDPS Act at Police Station City Dabwali.

¶12

The appellant was convicted for keeping in possession 880 grams

¶13

of opium and sentenced as mentioned below:

¶14

Offence	Sentence
Section 18of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic	Rigorous imprisonment of 18 months and to	for a period pay fine of
Substances Act, 1985	Rs.20,000/- and in payment of fine, to fur simple imprisonment months.	default of ther undergo for three

¶15

Neha 2025.05.14 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

CRA-S-1545-SB-2009

¶17

-2-

¶18

Learned counsel for the appellant inter alia contends that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case and conscious possession of the alleged contraband from the appellant has not been proved. There are also material discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. No independent witness was joined in the investigation and there is non-compliance of all the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act. Further, she is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction on merits and restricts his prayer to modification of the order on quantum of sentence, to that of the sentence already undergone by the appellant as he has already undergone an actual period of 05 months and 19 days in custody and he is not involved in any other criminal activity .

¶19

Per contra , learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the appellant as the learned Court below has passed a well-reasoned judgment based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record and as such, he does not deserve any leniency.

¶20

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 880 grams of opium, i.e. intermediate quantity, attracting the offence of Section 18 of NDPS Act, for which no minimum punishment has been prescribed. As per his custody certificate, appellant has already undergone an actual period of 05 months and 19 days out of total sentence of 18 months, in the instant case. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Section 18 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.

¶21

Neha 2025.05.14 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶22

CRA-S-1545-SB-2009

¶23

-3-

¶24

In Deo Narain Mandal vs. State of U.P. (2004) 7 SCC 257 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has opined that 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, 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.

¶25

Further, 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 the conduct of the accused to strike a balance between the efficacy of law and the chances of reformation of the accused.

¶26

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. However, the FIR (supra) was lodged on 03.07.2007 and the appellant has been suffering the agony of trial for

¶27

Neha 2025.05.14 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶28

CRA-S-1545-SB-2009

¶29

-4-

¶30

last more than 17 years. Since his conviction, he has grown into a law-abiding citizen and desires to live a peaceful life.

¶31

Therefore, in view of the discussion above, the present appeal is

¶32

disposed of in the following terms:-

¶33

(i) The judgment of conviction dated 06.05.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, is upheld.

¶34

(ii) The order of sentence dated 11.05.2009 is modified to the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 18 months and fine along with default mechanism awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by him.

¶35

10. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand

¶36

disposed of.

¶37

12.05.2025		(HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE
Neha
	Whether speaking/reasoned	: Yes/No
	Whether reportable	: Yes/No

¶38

Neha 2025.05.14 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Raju @ Rajinder v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju @ Rajinder 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

Arjun Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Others

Deepti Sharma and Another Vs State of Punjab and Others

Rahul Ahuja and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Others

Vijaypal Singh Vs State of Punjab

Surender Singh Vs State of Haryana

Amit Kumar Vs State of Haryana