Sat Pal Singh Vs State of Punjab

1 . The prayer in the present appeal is to set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.10.2010 passed by learned Special Judge, Ferozepur, 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.272 dated 20.09.2006, under Section 18 of the NDPS Act at Police Station

¶11

Sadar Ferozepur.

¶12

The appellant was convicted for keeping in possession 520 grams

¶13

of opium and sentenced as mentioned below:

¶14

Offence	Sentence
Section 18of the Narcotic	Rigorous imprisonment for a period
Drugs and Psychotropic	of01 yearand to pay fine of
Substances Act, 1985	Rs.5,000/-and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.

¶15

Learned counsel for the appellant inter alia contends that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case and there is noncompliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. Independent witness, namely,

¶16

Neha 2025.05.20 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

CRA-S-2583-SB-2010

¶18

-2-

¶19

Kuldeep Singh, was not examined and there is delay of 06 days in sending the CFSL form, as such, possibility of tampering with the samples cannot be ruled out. There are also material discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. Further, he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction on merits and 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 an actual period of 03 months and 30 days in custody.

¶20

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. He further submits that the appellant is involved in one more case and as such, he does not deserve any leniency.

¶21

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 520 grams of opium, i.e. intermediate quantity, attracting the offence of Section 18 of NDPS Act, for which no minimum punishment has been prescribed. As per his custody certificate, appellant has already undergone an actual period of 03 months and 30 days out of total sentence of 01 year, 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.

¶22

Further, the primary consideration in matters where the petitioner/appellant is involved in other NDPS cases ought to be the severity of the offence. Moreover, Co-ordinate benches of this Court have deemed it appropriate

¶23

Neha 2025.05.20 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶24

CRA-S-2583-SB-2010

¶25

-3-

¶26

to reduce the sentence imposed upon the accused to be the custody already undergone by them, in spite of their involvement in other cases pertaining to the NDPS Act in Pritam Singh @ Preeti vs. State of Punjab in CRA-S-1769-SB-2010 decided on 03.04.2025, Ram Lal vs. State of Haryana in CRA-S-986-SB-2005 decided on 11.05.2018 , Raj Pal vs. State of Haryana in CRA-S-68-SB-2005 decided on 28.04.2023, Raj Pal vs. State of Haryana in CRA-S-34-SB-2005 decided on 28.04.2023 and Gurmail Singh and others vs. State of Punjab in CRA-S-1976-SB-2007 decided on 28.03.2025.

¶27

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 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.

¶28

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

¶29

Neha 2025.05.20 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶30

CRA-S-2583-SB-2010

¶31

-4-

¶32

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 20.09.2006 and the appellant has been suffering the agony of trial for last more than 19 years. Since his conviction, he has grown into a law-abiding 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 of conviction dated 11.10.2010 passed by the learned Special Judge, Ferozepur, is upheld.

¶36

(ii) The order of sentence dated 11.10.2010 is modified to the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 01 year and fine along with default mechanism awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by him.

¶37

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

¶38

disposed of.

¶39

		(HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE
16.05.2025
Neha
	Whether speaking/reasoned	: Yes/No
	Whether reportable	: Yes/No

¶40

Neha 2025.05.20 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Sat Pal Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sat 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

Simran and Another Vs State of Punjab and Others

Mukesh Kumar Alias Mukesh Vs State of Punjab

Harpreet Singh Alias Harpreet Singh Toor Vs State of Punjab and Others

Rohan Vs State of Haryana and Others

Kirpal Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others

Anup Singh Vs State of Punjab