Ajaib Singh Vs State of Haryana

Th e prayer in the present appeal i s to set aside the judgment of conviction and o rder of sentence dated 20.11.2007 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Special Court, Kurukshetra, whereby t h e appellant was convicted and sentenced for t h e offence punishable under Se c tion 15 and 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psy c hotropic Substances Act, 198 5 (hereinafter ‘NDPS Act’), in the case stemm i ng from FIR No.343 dated 10. 0 9.2004, under Sections 15, 18 and 29 of the N D PS Act at Police Station Shah a bad.

¶15

Th e appellant was sentenced as me n tioned below:

¶16

Offence		Sentence
Sections 1 Narcotic 5 and 18 of Drugs	the and	Imprison undergon ment for the period already e by the appellant i.e. from
Psychotrop ic Substances	Act,	11.09.20 04 to 28.10.2004, with a fine
1985		of Rs.12 of fine,t ,000/-, in default of payment o undergoSI for01 month.

¶17

Br i ef facts of the case are that o n 10.09.2004, when SI Baljeet Singh along wi t h other police officials was present in front of Punjabi Dhaba

¶18

MANISHA 2025.04.22 12:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment

¶19

CRA-S-209-SB-2008

¶20

2

¶21

on G.T. Road at Bus Stand Dhantori, in c o nnection with patrolling, the appellant, carry i ng a plastic bag in his right ha n d, was seen coming out of the said Dhaba. H e was apprehended on suspicio n . Upon search of plastic bag carried by him, 6 kgs of Poppy Husk and 140 g r ams of Opium were recovered. Subsequently, F IR (supra) was registered u n der Sections 15/18/29 of the NDPS Act.

¶22

Le a rned counsel for the appella n t inter alia contends that an independent wi t ness was joined during investig a tion but was not examined by the prosecution. He further contends that neithe r the provision of Section 42 of NDPS Act has b een complied with nor a unde r Section 50 of the NDPS Act was served upo n the appellant. Learned counse l submits that the entire case of the prosecution is based upon the testimonies o f official witnesses, which also have material c o ntradictions in them. Lastly, h e submits that the appellant has undergone tota l custody period of 01 mont h and 18 days and he is not involved in any other case.

¶23

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.

¶24

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 06 kgs of P oppy Husk and 140 grams of Opium, which f all under the purview of Sectio n s 15 and 18 of NDPS Act. A perusal of the judgment passed by learne d Special Court indicates no perversity and t h e same is based on correct app r eciation of the facts as well as

¶25

MANISHA 2025.04.22 12:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment

¶26

CRA-S-209-SB-2008

¶27

3

¶28

the law. As pe r his custody certificate, he ha s already undergone an actual sentence of 01 m onth and 18 days, in the instan t case. Since, the appellant was in possession o f non-commercial quantity of c o ntraband, this Court is of the opinion that th e learned Court below has corre c tly sentenced the appellant to the period unde r gone by him. 7. 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 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