Mohinder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Th e prayer in the present appeal i s to set aside the judgment of conviction date d 23.09.2008 and order of sente n ce dated 24.09.2008 passed by learned Special Judge, Ferozepur, 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.13 2 dated 08.08.2002 registered under Section 1 5 of NDPS Act at Police Station Khuyian Sarwar. 2. Th e appellant was sentenced for k e eping in his possession 25 kgs

¶14

of Poppy Husk, as mentioned below:

¶15

Offence	Sentence
Section 15 Drugs of the Narcotic and Psychotropic	Rigorous oftwo imprisonment yearsand to	for a period pay fine of
Substances Act, 1985	Rs.20,00 0/- and in	default of
	payment RI for six of fine, to fur months.	ther undergo

¶16

MANISHA 2025.05.09 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment

¶17

CRA-S-1919-SB-2008

¶18

2

¶19

Le a rned Counsel for the appellant s ubmits that he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 2 3.09.2008 passed by learned Special Judge, F erozepur on merits and restricts his prayer to modification of the order on qu a ntum of sentence dated 24.09.2008 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 04 months and 18 days and he is not involved in any other case.

¶20

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.

¶21

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 25 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 ndergone a period of 04 mon t hs and 18 days, out of total sentence of tw o 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. 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

¶22

MANISHA 2025.05.09 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment

¶23

CRA-S-1919-SB-2008

¶24

3

¶25

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. 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.

¶26

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 08.08.2002 and the ap p ellant has been suffering the agony of trial f o r last more than 22 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:-

¶27

MANISHA 2025.05.09 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment

¶28

CRA-S-1919-SB-2008

¶29

4

¶30

(i) The judgment dated 23.09.200 8 passed by the learned Special Ju d ge, Ferozepur is upheld.

¶31

(ii) The order of sentence dated 2 4.09.2008 is modified to the extent that the sentence of rigoro u s imprisonment for two years an d fine of Rs.10,000/- along with default mechanism awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period of sentence already un d ergone by him.

¶32

(HARPREET SINGH BRAR) May 05, 2025 JUDGE manisha (i) Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No (ii) Whether reportable Yes/No

¶33

MANISHA 2025.05.09 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment

Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohinder 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

Daljit Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Another

M/S Amsons Laboratories Private Limited Vs State of Punjab

Jasdeep Singh Alias Soni and Others Vs State of Punjab and Another

Ranjit Singh Alias Rana Vs State of Punjab

Ashok Kumar @ Raju Vs State of Punjab

Chamba Singh Vs State of Punjab