Disposed¶34

Paramjit Singh v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Apr 2025CRA-S/2177/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRA-S-2177-SB-2007; Paramjit Singh v. State of Haryana; High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh; decided 01.04.2025; Harpreet Singh Brar J.; NDPS Act Section 18; opium 730 grams intermediate quantity; FIR No.105 dated 22.07.2004 Police Station Ladwa; Special Court Kurukshetra; sentence reduction to period already undergone; custody certificate 9 months 04 days; no minimum punishment intermediate quantity; Deo Narain Mandal (2004) 7 SCC 257; Ravada Sasikala AIR 2017 SC 1166; proportionality and reformation in sentencing; fine Rs.15,000/- default simple imprisonment 2 months; conviction upheld.

What did the court decide?

Conviction upheld; sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 1½ years with fine of Rs.15,000/- and default clause reduced to the period already undergone (9 months 04 days); pending miscellaneous applications disposed of.

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether the quantum of sentence (rigorous imprisonment of 1½ years with fine and default clause under Section 18 NDPS Act) should be modified to the sentence already undergone by the appellant. +1 more

¶25

Court's answer

The appellant was convicted for being in possession of 730 grams of Opium, i.e. intermediate quantity, attracting the offence of Section 18 NDPS Act.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

The judgment of conviction dated 18.10.2007 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Special Court, Kurukshetra, is upheld.

¶35

Key takeaways

No minimum punishment has been prescribed under Section 18 NDPS Act for the offence of which the appellant was convicted.ratio¶27
As per his custody certificate, the appellant is not involved in any other case and has already undergone an actual sentence of 9 months 04 days in the instant case.ratio¶27
It would be in the interest of justice to reduce the sentence awarded to the appellant to the period already undergone by him.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Harpreet Singh Brar, J., oral), CRA-S-2177-SB-2007, decided 01.04.2025. Appellant, convicted by the Special Court, Kurukshetra (judgment and sentence dated 18.10.2007) under Section 18 NDPS Act for possessing 730 grams of opium (intermediate quantity), stemming from FIR No.105 dated 22.07.2004, PS Ladwa, did not assail the conviction on merits and sought reduction of sentence to time already undergone (9 months 04 days). The Court upheld the conviction, observing that no minimum punishment is prescribed under Section 18 NDPS Act for an intermediate quantity, and relying on Deo Narain Mandal v. State of U.P., (2004) 7 SCC 257 and Ravada Sasikala v. State of AP, AIR 2017 SC 1166 on proportionate and reformative sentencing, reduced the sentence of 1½ years' rigorous imprisonment, Rs.15,000/- fine and 2 months' default simple imprisonment to the period already undergone. Pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.

¶1

CRA-S-2177-SB-2007

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

707

¶5

CRA-S-2177-SB-2007 Date of decision : 01.04.2025

Paramjit Singh

..... Appellant

VERSUS

State of Haryana.

………..... Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

¶12

Present: Mr. B. S. Mamli, Advocate, for the appellant.

¶13

Mr. Harkesh Singh, AAG, Haryana.

¶14

¶15

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral)

¶16

1 . The prayer in the present appeal is to set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.10.2007 respectively passed by Presiding Officer, Special Court, Kurukshetra, whereby, the appellant was convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter ‘NDPS Act’), in the case stemming from FIR No.105 dated 22.07.2004, under Section 18 of the NDPS Act at Police Station Ladwa.

¶17

The appellant was convicted for keeping in possession 730 grams

¶18

of Opium and sentenced as mentioned below:

¶19

	Offence	Sentence
Section	18of the Narcotic	Rigorous imprisonment for a period
Drugs	and Psychotropic	of1 ½ yearsand to pay fine of
Substanc	es Act, 1985	Rs.15,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for 2 months.

¶20

Learned counsel for the appellant contends that he is not assailing

¶21

the impugned judgment of conviction dated 18.10.2007 on merits and

¶22

ANIL KUMAR 2025.04.07 12:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶23

CRA-S-2177-SB-2007

¶24

¶25

restricts his prayer to modification of the order on quantum of sentence, to that of the sentence already undergone by the appellant, as he has already undergone a period of 9 months and 4 days in custody and is not involved in any other criminal activity.

¶26

Per contra , learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the appellant as the learned Court below has passed a well-reasoned judgment based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record and as such, he does not deserve any leniency.

¶27

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record with their able assistance, it transpires that the appellant was convicted for being in possession of 730 grams of Opium, i.e. intermediate quantity, attracting the offence of Section 18 NDPS Act, for which no minimum punishment has been prescribed. As per his custody certificate, he is not involved in any other case and has already undergone an actual sentence of 9 months 04 days, in the instant case. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Section 18 NDPS Act, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice, if the sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶28

In Deo Narain Mandal vs. State of U.P. (2004) 7 SCC 257 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has opined that awarding of sentence is not a mere formality in criminal cases. When a minimum and maximum term is prescribed by the statute with regard to the period of sentence, a discretionary element is vested in the Court. Background of each case, which includes factors like gravity of the offence, manner in which the offence is committed, age of the accused, should be considered while determining the quantum of sentence and this discretion is not to be used arbitrarily or

¶29

ANIL KUMAR 2025.04.07 12:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶30

CRA-S-2177-SB-2007 3

¶31

whimsically. After assessing all relevant factors, proper sentence should be awarded bearing in mind the principle of proportionality to ensure the sentence is neither excessively harsh nor does it come across as lenient.

¶32

Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravada Sasikala vs. State of AP AIR 2017 SC 1166 , has reiterated that the imposition of sentence also serves a social purpose as it acts as a deterrent by making the accused realise the damage caused not only to the victim but also to the society at large. The law in this regard is well settled that opportunities of reformation must be granted and such discretion is to be exercised by evaluating all attending circumstances of each case by noticing the nature of the crime, the manner in which the crime was committed and the conduct of the accused to strike a balance between the efficacy of law and the chances of reformation of the accused.

¶33

A perusal of the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court indicates no perversity in its findings and the same is based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record. However, the FIR (supra) was lodged on 22.07.2004 and the appellant has been suffering the agony of trial for last more than 20 years. Since his conviction, he has grown into a lawabiding citizen and desires to live a peaceful life.

¶34

Therefore, in view of the discussion above, the present appeal is disposed of in the following terms:-

¶35

(i) The judgment dated 18.10.2007 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Special Court, Kurukshetra, is upheld.

¶36

(ii) The order of sentence dated 18.10.2007 is modified to the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 1 ½ years and fine along with default mechanism awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by him.

¶37

ANIL KUMAR 2025.04.07 12:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶38

¶39

CRA-S-2177-SB-2007

¶40

10. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand

¶41

disposed of.

¶42

(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)

¶43