Ranjit Singh Alias Rana 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 07.10. 2 008 passed by learned Judge, Special Court, J alandhar, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced for the offenc e punishable under Section 2 1 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic S u bstances Act, 1985 (hereinaf t er ‘NDPS Act’), in the case stemming from FIR No.95 dated 29.03.2003 un d er Section 21 of NDPS Act at Police Station N akodar.

¶12

Th e appellant was sentenced as me n tioned below:

¶13

	Offence	Sentence
Section Drugs	2 1of the Narcotic and Psychotropic	Rigorous ofsix m imprisonment for a period onthsand to pay fine of
Substanc	es Act, 1985	Rs.1,000 /- and in default of payment
		of fine,t month. o further undergo RI for 01

¶14

Br i ef facts of the case are that on 29.03.2003 when ASI Hussan

¶15

Lal along with o ther police officials was comi n g from Nakodar towards Guru Nanak National College, Nakodar and was 10 0 yards short from canal minor

¶16

MANISHA 2025.05.08 18:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment

¶17

CRA-S-1942-SB-2008

¶18

2

¶19

bridge, in conn e ction with patrolling, the appel l ant was seen coming from the opposite side. O n seeing the police, out of n e rvousness, he started moving towards the ba n k of canal minor bridge. On s u spicion, he was apprehended. Upon his sear c h, 100 grams of Smack wra p ped in a glazed paper was recovered from the right pocket of his lower. S ubsequently, FIR (supra) was registered unde r Section 21 of the NDPS Act.

¶20

Le a rned amicus curiae for the ap p ellant inter alia contends that there is a total non-compliance of Section 5 5 of the NDPS Act and it is admitted case of the prosecution that after the recovery of the alleged contraband, the same was produced before t h e MHC, whereas, as per the provisions cont a ined under Section 55 of ND P S Act, the case property was required to be produced before the SHO. F u rther, the entire case of the prosecution hin g es upon the statements of off i cial witnesses. Moreover, one independent wi t ness was joined, however, he w as not examined. She submits that there is non-compliance of Section 50 o f NDPS Act as per which, the appellant was s ubjected to his personal searc h . Lastly, she submits that the appellant has a l ready undergone total custod y period of 02 months and 06 days, out of to t al sentence of six months, in t he instant case 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

¶23

MANISHA 2025.05.08 18:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment

¶24

CRA-S-1942-SB-2008

¶25

3

¶26

convicted for b e ing in possession of 100 grams of Smack, which falls under the purview of S ection 21 of NDPS Act. As pe r his custody certificate, he has already underg o ne an actual sentence of 02 m o nths and 06 days out of total sentence of si x months, in the instant case. Since there is no minimum punishment pr e scribed under Section 21 of NDPS Act, for the noncommercial qu a ntity this Court is of the opinio n that it would be in the interest of justice, if th e sentence awarded to the app e llant is reduced to the period already underg o ne 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 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. 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 2025.05.08 18:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment

¶29

CRA-S-1942-SB-2008

¶30

4

¶31

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.

¶32

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 29.03.2003 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 a law-abidi n g citizen and desires to live a p e aceful 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:-

¶33

(i) The judgment dated 07.10.200 8 passed by the learned Judge, Sp e cial Court, Jalandhar is upheld. (ii) The order of sentence of date d 07.10.2008 is modified to the extent that the sentence of rigorou s imprisonment for six months an d fine of Rs.1,000/- along with d efault mechanism awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period of sentence already un d ergone by him.

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

MANISHA 2025.05.08 18:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment

Ranjit Singh Alias Rana v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjit Singh Alias Rana 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

Mohinder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Ashok Kumar @ Raju Vs State of Punjab

Chamba Singh Vs State of Punjab