Partly allowed¶¶35

Roshan Lal v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC26 Mar 2025CRA-S/1601/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRA-S No.1601-SB-2007 (O&M); Punjab & Haryana High Court; decision 26.03.2025; NDPS Act Section 15; poppy husk 15 Kgs; intermediate quantity; no minimum punishment; reduction of sentence to period already undergone; 02 months 13 days undergone; conviction upheld; FIR No.131 dated 26.02.2003 PS Ratia; ASI Hoshiar Singh; Additional Sessions Judge Fatehabad judgment 13.08.2007; sentencing discretion; Deo Narain Mandal (2004) 7 SCC 257; Ravada Sasikala AIR 2017 SC 1166; prolonged trial over 22 years; fine Rs.5,000/-.

What did the court decide?

Appeal disposed of: judgment of conviction dated 13.08.2007 upheld; order of sentence modified so that RI for 01 year, fine of Rs.5,000/- and default clause stand reduced to the period of sentence already undergone (02 months and 13 days). Pending miscellaneous applications disposed of. ¶¶35

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.08.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad should be set aside. +1 more

¶¶14

Court's answer

The judgment of conviction dated 13.08.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad is upheld; no perversity in the trial Court's findings.

¶¶36

Ratio / Principle

Possession of 15 Kgs of Poppy Husk is intermediate quantity under Section 15 NDPS Act, for which no minimum punishment is prescribed; reduction of sentence to the period already undergone serves the interest of justice.

¶¶23

Key takeaways

Order of sentence dated 13.08.2007 modified: rigorous imprisonment of 01 year and fine of Rs.5,000/- with default mechanism reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by the appellant (actual sentence undergone: 02 months and 13 days).ratio¶¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Harpreet Singh Brar J., oral) disposes of CRA-S No.1601-SB-2007 arising from FIR No.131 dated 26.02.2003, PS Ratia, under Section 15 NDPS Act. Conviction of the appellant (Roshan Lal) for possession of 15 Kgs of poppy husk — intermediate quantity attracting Section 15, an offence carrying no prescribed minimum punishment — is upheld, counsel having not assailed it on merits. Relying on Deo Narain Mandal v. State of UP, (2004) 7 SCC 257 and Ravada Sasikala v. State of AP, AIR 2017 SC 1166 on proportionate, reform-oriented sentencing, and noting the appellant had undergone 02 months and 13 days and suffered trial for over 22 years, the Court reduces the sentence of RI 01 year and fine of Rs.5,000/- (with default clause) to the period of sentence already undergone.

¶1

CRA-S No.1601-SB-2007 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

622

¶4

CRA-S No.1601-SB-2007 (O&M) Date of decision: 26.03.2025

Roshan Lal

....Appellant

Versus

State of Haryana

....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

¶11

Present: Mr. Vicky Sharma, Advocate for Mr. P.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate for the appellant.

¶12

Mr. Harkesh Kumar, AAG, Haryana.

¶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 13.08.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad 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.131 dated 26.02.2003 registered under Section 15 of the NDPS Act at Police Station Ratia.

¶15

2. The appellant was sentenced as mentioned below:

¶16

Offence Sentence
Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs Rigorous imprisonment for a period of
and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 01 year and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for 02 months.

¶17

MOHD YAKUB 2025.04.01 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh

¶18

CRA-S No.1601-SB-2007

¶19

¶20

Brief facts of the case are that on 26.02.2003, a police party headed by ASI Hoshiar Singh on the basis of suspicion, apprehended the accused/appellant with 15 Kgs of Poppy Husk and subsequently, FIR (supra) was registered under Section 15 of the NDPS Act.

¶21

Learned counsel for the appellant contends that he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 13.08.2007 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 02 months and 13 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, he 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 15 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 13 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

¶24

MOHD YAKUB 2025.04.01 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh

¶25

CRA-S No.1601-SB-2007

¶26

¶27

the sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶28

In Deo Narain Mandal Vs. State of UP, (2004) 7 SCC 257 ,

¶29

a three-Judge Bench of 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, 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. 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

MOHD YAKUB 2025.04.01 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh

¶31

CRA-S No.1601-SB-2007

¶32

¶33

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 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.

¶34

The FIR in the present case was registered on 26.02.2003 and the appellant has been suffering the agony of trial since the last more than 22 years. Since his conviction, the appellant has grown into a law-abiding citizen and desires to live a peaceful life.

¶35

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

¶36

(i) The judgment of conviction dated 13.08.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad is upheld.

¶37

(ii) The order of sentence dated 13.08.2007 is modified to the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of 01 year and fine of Rs.5,000/- along with default mechanism awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by him.

¶38

All the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶39

		(HARP	REET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE
26.03.2025
yakub	Whether speaking/reas	oned:	Yes/No
	Whether reportable:		Yes/No

¶40

MOHD YAKUB 2025.04.01 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh

Roshan Lal v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Roshan Lal 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

Sandeep Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Another

Jatin Jindal Vs State of Haryana

Buta Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab

Ginder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Jasbir Singh Vs State of Punjab

Nirmal Singh Vs State of Punjab