Disposed¶28

Mangal Singh v. State of Punjab

NDPS Act, S.15 – Possession of 20 kgs poppy husk (non-commercial quantity)

Punjab & Haryana HC21 May 2025CRA-S/1671/2007

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRA-S-1671-SB-2007; Mangal Singh @ Manga v. State of Punjab; High Court of Punjab and Haryana; Harpreet Singh Brar J.; decided 21.05.2025; NDPS Act Section 15; 20 kgs poppy husk; non-commercial quantity; no minimum punishment; sentence reduction to period already undergone; 06 months 14 days custody certificate; conviction upheld; Special Court Jalandhar; FIR No.71 dated 28.06.2005 PS GRP Jalandhar; fine Rs.40,000/-; Deo Narain Mandal (2004) 7 SCC 257; Ravada Sasikala AIR 2017 SC 1166; proportionality; reformation.

What did the court decide?

Appeal disposed of: conviction upheld; sentence of rigorous imprisonment for four years and fine (with default clause) reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant (06 months and 14 days as per custody certificate). ¶28

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the order on quantum of sentence dated 11.07.2007 (RI four years and fine) should be modified to the period of sentence already undergone, the appellant not assailing the conviction on merits. +1 more

¶20

Court's answer

There is no minimum punishment prescribed under Section 15 of NDPS Act for the non-commercial quantity (20 kgs poppy husk); in the interest of justice the sentence awarded to the appellant deserves to be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

The judgment of conviction dated 10.07.2007 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, Jalandhar indicates no perversity in its findings and is based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record.

¶28

Key takeaways

The judgment dated 10.07.2007 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, Jalandhar is upheld.ratio¶31
The order of sentence dated 11.07.2007 is modified to the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for four years and fine along with default mechanism awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by him.ratio¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

NDPS Act, S.15 — Possession of 20 kgs poppy husk (non-commercial quantity) — Appeal confined to quantum of sentence, conviction not challenged on merits — Trial Court's conviction upheld, no perversity found — No minimum punishment prescribed under S.15 for non-commercial quantity — Sentence of RI four years and fine of Rs.40,000/- (default RI 08 months) reduced to period already undergone (06 months and 14 days per custody certificate; appellant not involved in any other case) — Principles of proportionality, reformation and individualised sentencing applied relying on Deo Narain Mandal vs. State of U.P. (2004) 7 SCC 257 and Ravada Sasikala vs. State of AP AIR 2017 SC 1166 — Appeal disposed of.

¶1

631 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CRA-S-1671-SB-2007 Date of decision: 21.05.2025

¶3

MANGAL SINGH @ MANGA

...APPELLANT

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB

...RESPONDENT

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

¶9

Present: Ms. G.K. Mann, Senior Advocate w ith Mr. G.P.S. Randhawa, Advocate for the appellant.

¶10

Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG, Punjab.

¶11

¶12

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

¶13

Th e prayer in the present appeal i s to set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10/ 1 1.07.2007 passed by learned Judge, Special Court, Jalandhar, whereby, th e appellant was convicted and sentenced for t h e offence punishable under Se c tion 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotro p ic Substances Act, 1985 (her e inafter referred to as ‘NDPS Act’), in the c a se stemming from FIR No.7 1 dated 28.06.2005 registered under Section 1 5 of NDPS Act at Police Station GRP Jalandhar.

¶14

Th e appellant was sentenced for k e eping in his possession 20 kgs

¶15

of poppy husk, a s mentioned below:

¶16

Offence	Sentence
Section 15 Drugs of the Narcotic and Psychotropic	Rigorous offour imprisonment yearsand to	for a period pay fine of
Substances Act, 1985	Rs.40,00 0/- and in	default of
	payment RI for 08 of fine, to fur months.	ther undergo

¶17

MANISHA 2025.05.26 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment

¶18

CRA-S-1671-SB-2007

¶19

¶20

Le a rned Counsel for the appellant s ubmits that he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 1 0.07.2007 passed by learned Judge, Special Court, Jalandhar on merits and restricts his prayer to modification of the order on quantum of sente n ce dated 11.07.2007 to that of sentence alread y undergone by the appellant. A s per the custody certificate, the appellant h a s undergone a period of 06 mo n ths and 14 days and he is not involved in any other case.

¶21

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.

¶22

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 convicted for b e ing in possession of 20 kgs of poppy husk, which falls under the purview of Section 15 of NDPS Act. As p er the custody certificate, the appellant has u ndergone a period of 06 mon t hs and 14 days, out of total sentence of fou r years, in the instant case and h e is not involved in any other case. Since the r e is no minimum punishment p rescribed under Section 15 of NDPS Act, for t he non-commercial quantity thi s Court is of the opinion that it would be in th e interest of justice, if the sente n ce awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶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 prescribed by t h e statute with regard to the per i od of sentence, a discretionary

¶24

MANISHA 2025.05.26 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment

¶25

CRA-S-1671-SB-2007

¶26

¶27

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 hich 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. 7. 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.

¶28

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 28.06.2005 and the ap p ellant has been suffering the agony of trial f o r last more than 19 years. Sinc e his conviction, he has grown into law-abidin g citizen and desires to live a pe a ceful life. 9. Th e refore, in view of the discus s ion above, present appeal is disposed of in t h e following terms:-

¶29

MANISHA 2025.05.26 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment

¶30

CRA-S-1671-SB-2007 4

¶31

(i) The judgment dated 10.07.200 7 passed by the learned Judge, Sp e cial Court, Jalandhar is upheld.

¶32

(ii) The order of sentence dated 1 1.07.2007 is modified to the extent that the sentence of rigoro u s imprisonment for four years an d fine along with default mech a nism awarded to the appellant is r educed to the period of sentenc e already undergone by him.

¶33

(HARPREET SINGH BRAR) May 21, 2025 JUDGE manisha

¶34

(i) Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No (ii) Whether reportable Yes/No

¶35

MANISHA 2025.05.26 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment

Mangal Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mangal 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

Bant Singh Vs St.of Hy.

Bhavishya Hans Vs State of Punjab

Rajesh Kumar Vs State of Pb.

Sunita Vs State of Haryana and Others

Ravi Sharma Vs State of Punjab

Pal Singh Vs State of Punjab