Jhujar Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

1. Challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment/order da t ed 27.03.2018 & 28.03.2018, passed by the l e arned Special Court, Jaland h ar, whereby the a ppellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigor o us imprisonment f or two years alongwith fine o f Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of the same, to further undergo rigoro u s imprisonment for three mon t hs, for the offence punishable under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs a nd Psychotropic S u bstances Act, 1985 (for short ‘t h e Act’). 2. T h e factual matrix reveals that o n 28.11.2013, when SI Piara Si n gh alongwith other police officials were on patrolli n g duty in the area of Mari Har n ia, Jalandhar and t h ey apprehended the accused in possession of 1 kgs. 400 g. opi u m. The requisite s a mples were drawn and seale d . Ruqa was sent, on the basis of which, an FIR w as registered.

¶16

ASHOK KUMAR 2025.09.17 12:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

CRA-S-3371-SB-2018 (O&M)

¶18

- 2-

¶19

3. After the investigation concluded, the police submitted the final report in terms of Section 173 Cr.P.C. The Court, upon finding a prima facie case, proceeded to frame charge under Section 18 of the Act. The accused, however, pleaded not guilty and insisted on trial.

¶20

4. 7 witnesses were examined by the prosecution in support of its case, after which the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein the accused denied incriminating evidence, while pleading innocence and alleged false implication. In defence, DW1 Nachatar Singh was examined.

¶21

5. The learned trial Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as noticed above.

¶22

Hence appellant in appeal.

¶23

The challenge to the conviction is given up by the learned counsel, who now confines his prayer for reduction of sentence to the period of 6 months and 23 days , already undergone by the appellant, on the grounds he belongs to the poor strata of society; first offender; the only bread earner of the family; recovery was non-commercial; having two children, one of marriageable age; not involved in any other case after grant of bail and has been facing the agony of protracted trial since 2013.

¶24

Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the trial Court after evaluating the evidence has rightly convicted the appellant and the sentence awarded to him cannot be said to be excessive, therefore, he prays for the dismissal of the present appeal. He, however, was unable to deny that appellant, during pendency, committed no similar offence.

¶25

Counsel on either side heard and the record perused.

¶26

As is discernable from the impugned judgment, PW7-SI Piara Singh

¶27

ASHOK KUMAR 2025.09.17 12:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶28

CRA-S-3371-SB-2018 (O&M)

¶29

- 3-

¶30

and PW5-ASI Manjit Singh had deposed that the accused-appellant was apprehended and found to be in conscious possession of the alleged contraband. As per Chemical Examiner report Ex.PY, the contents of contraband were found to be ‘Opium’. Thus, the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant and there is no scope for interference in the findings recorded therewith and the conclusion arrived at. As such, his conviction is upheld.

¶31

On the issue of reduction of sentence to the period already undergone, the judgment in S.K. Sakkar @ Mannan vs. State of West Bengal, (2021) 4 SCC 483 , can be referred to, wherein the accused was convicted under Section 20 of the Act and Hon’ble the Supreme Court reduced the sentence of five years to 2 years, 4 months and 16 days, by considering that the occurrence took place in 1997 and he was not a habitual offender, rather a first-time convict.

¶32

12. In Satish vs. State of U.P., (2021) 14 SCC 580, Hon’ble the Supreme Court had observed that, “Whilst it is undoubtedly true that society has a right to lead a peaceful and fearless life, without free roaming criminals creating havoc in the lives of ordinary peace loving citizens. But equally strong is the foundation of reformative theory which propounds that a civilised society cannot be achieved only through punitive attitudes and vindictiveness; and that instead public harmony, brotherhood and mutual acceptability ought to be fostered. Thus, first time offenders ought to be liberally accorded a chance to repent their past and look forward to a bright future. [Maru Ram v. Union of India, (1981) 1 SCC 107 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 112]”.

¶33

Likewise, in Naresh Kumar vs. State of Haryana , CRA-S-796-SB2005, decided on 24.02.2023, the sentence of the appellant i.e. 3 years and 6 months, convicted under Section 15 of the Act, was modified to the period

¶34

ASHOK KUMAR 2025.09.17 12:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶35

CRA-S-3371-SB-2018 (O&M)

¶36

- 4-

¶37

undergone i.e. 8 months and 25 days already, by holding that no useful purpose will be served by sending him to jail after 22 years from the date of incident, in view of the fact that he was onl y about 28 years old at that time.

¶38

Whilst adopting a sympathetic approach; the appellant having suffered the vagaries of trial since long; successfully warded off his crime-proneness-an evident learning of a lesson; his socio-economic circumstances, this Court finds mitigating factors apparent. Thus, it would serve the ends of justice to reduce his sentence to the period already undergone, however, keeping the fine intact.

¶39

15. The order of sentence dated 28.03.2018 is modified to the aforesaid

¶40

extent and as such, the present petition stands partly allowed.

¶41

	(AMAN CHAUDHARY) JUDGE
16.09.2025
ashok
Whether speaking/reasoned	: Yes / No
Whether reportable	: Yes / No

¶42

ASHOK KUMAR 2025.09.17 12:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Jhujar Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jhujar Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

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

Yashpal Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Jagjit Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Sudhir Kumar Srivastava Vs State of Union Territory Chandigarh and Others

Jaskaran Singh Vs Si Mukhtiar Singh & Ors.

Sumer Chand Vs State of Haryana and Another

Mamta Rani Vs State of Punjab and Another