Pal 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 30.08. 2 007 passed by learned Judge, Special Court, S angrur, whereby, the appellan t was convicted and sentenced for the offenc e punishable under Section 1 5 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic S u bstances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ‘NDPS Act’), in the case stem m ing from FIR No.200 dated 09.11.2003 registered under Section 15 of N D PS Act at Police Station Lehr a .

¶14

Th e appellant was sentenced for k e eping in his possession 35 kgs

¶15

of poppy husk, a s mentioned below:

¶16

Offence	Sentence
Section 15 of the Narcotic	Rigorous imprisonment for a period
Drugs and Psychotropic	offour yearsand to pay fine of
Substances Act, 1985	Rs.5,000 of fine,t year. /- and in default of payment o further undergo RI for one

¶17

MANISHA 2025.05.26 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment

¶18

CRA-S-1785-SB-2007

¶19

2

¶20

Le a rned Counsel for the appellant s ubmits that he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 3 0.08.2007 passed by learned Judge, Special C ourt on merits and restricts hi s prayer to modification of the order on quant u m of sentence dated 30.08.20 0 7 to that of sentence already undergone by t h e appellant. As per the custod y certificate, the appellant has undergone a pe r iod of 11 months and 29 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 35 kgs of P oppy Husk, which falls under the purview of Section 15 of NDPS Act. As p er the custody certificate, the appellant has u n dergone a period of 11 mont h s and 29 days and he is not involved in any other case. Since there is no m i nimum punishment prescribed under Section 15 of NDPS Act, for the non-co m mercial quantity this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the inter e st of justice, if the sentence awarded to the a ppellant is reduced to the perio d already undergone by him. 6. 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

¶23

MANISHA 2025.05.26 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment

¶24

CRA-S-1785-SB-2007

¶25

3

¶26

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.

¶27

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 09.11.2003 and the ap p ellant has been suffering the agony of trial f o r last more than 21 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:-

¶28

MANISHA 2025.05.26 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment

¶29

CRA-S-1785-SB-2007 4

¶30

(i) The judgment dated 30.08.200 7 passed by the learned Judge, Sp e cial Court, Sangrur is upheld.

¶31

(ii) The order of sentence dated 3 0.08.2007 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.

¶32

(HARPREET SINGH BRAR) May 21, 2025 JUDGE manisha (i) Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No (ii) Whether reportable Yes/No

¶33

MANISHA 2025.05.26 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment

Pal Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pal 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

Mangal Singh Vs State of Punjab