Nirmal Singh 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 08.08. 2 007 passed by learned Judge, Special Court, B arnala, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced for the offenc e punishable under Section 1 5 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic S ubstances Act, 1985 (herein a fter ‘NDPS Act’), in case stemming from FIR No.33 dated 12.04.2006, u nder Section 15 of the NDPS Act at Police St a tion Bhadaur.

¶14

Th e appellant was sentenced as me n tioned below:

¶15

Offence	Sentence
Section 15 of the Narcotic	Rigorous imprisonment for a period
Drugs and Psychotropic	ofnine monthsand to pay fine of
Substances Act, 1985	Rs.500/- fine, to months. and in default of payment of further undergo RI for 02

¶16

Br i ef facts of the case are that o n 12.04.2006, SI Iqbal Singh along with other police officials was on patrol l ing and they were going from

¶17

MANISHA 2025.04.02 16:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment

¶18

CRA-S-1642-SB-2007

¶19

2

¶20

village Majhuk e Ram Garh towards village T a lewal. When the police party was little shor t of canal bridge of village D eepgarh, at about 9:00 AM, appellant, carr y ing something heavy in the p l astic bag on head, was seen coming. On se e ing the police party, he got per p lexed and turned towards the left side of can a l bridge. On suspicion, he wa s apprehended. Upon search of plastic bag, 12 k gs of Poppy Husk was recove r ed. Subsequently, FIR (supra) was registered u nder Section 15 of the NDPS A c t.

¶21

Le a rned amicus curiae for the ap p ellant inter alia contends that provisions of S e ction 57 of NDPS Act have bee n violated, which is fatal to the case of prosec u tion. Further, the link eviden c e is missing and there is no evidence availa b le on record about the fact th a t sample was deposited in the malkhana and with the chemical examiner. Furthermore, the case of the prosecution h inges upon the testimonies of official witnesses. She submits that independent witn e ss Mithu Khan, who was joine d during the course o f investigation, was not examined by the prosecution, rather he appeared as defence witness. Lastl y , she submits that the appellant has undergone a period of 0 3 months and 04 days, ou t of his total sentence of 09 months.

¶22

Pe r contra , learned State couns e l opposes the prayer of the appellant as th e learned Court below has pas s ed a well-reasoned judgment based on correc t appreciation of evidence avail a ble on record as such, he does not deserve any leniency. 6. Ha v ing heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record wit h their able assistance, it transpires that the appellant was

¶23

MANISHA 2025.04.02 16:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment

¶24

CRA-S-1642-SB-2007

¶25

3

¶26

convicted for be i ng in possession of 12 kgs of Po p py Husk, which falls under the purview of Sec t ion 15 NDPS Act, for which n o minimum sentence has been prescribed. As per the order dated 01.10.200 7 passed by this Court, when sentence of the a ppellant was suspended, he has u ndergone a period of 03 months and 04 days, ou t of his total sentence of 09 mo n ths. Since there is no minimum punishment pre s cribed under Section 15 NDP S Act, for the non-commercial quantity this Co u rt is of the opinion that it woul d be in the interest of justice, if the sentence aw a rded to the appellant is reduced t o the period already undergone by him.

¶27

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 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. 8. 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

¶28

MANISHA 2025.04.02 16:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment

¶29

CRA-S-1642-SB-2007 4

¶30

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.

¶31

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 12.04.2006 and the ap p ellant has been suffering the agony of trial f o r last about 19 years. Since his c onviction, he has grown into a law-abiding citi z en and desires to live a peacef u l life. 10. Th e refore, in view of the discussi o n above, the present appeal is disposed of in t h e following terms:-

¶32

(i) The judgment dated 08.08.200 7 passed by the learned Judge, Sp e cial Court, Barnala is upheld. (ii) The order of sentence of even d ate i.e. 08.08.2007 is modified to t he extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for nine months and fine of Rs.500/- al o ng with default mechanism aw a rded to the appellant is redu c ed to the period of sentence alr e ady undergone by him.

¶33

Th e High Court Legal Services Authority is directed to pay remuneration to the learned Amicus Curiae as p e r rules.

¶34

March 26, manisha	2025		(H ARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE
	(i)	Whether speaking/reasoned	Yes/No
	(ii)	Whether reportable	Yes/No

¶35

MANISHA 2025.04.02 16:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment

Nirmal Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nirmal Singh 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

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

Roshan Lal Vs State of Haryana

Jasbir Singh Vs State of Punjab