Amrik Singh Vs State of Punjab

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Present: M r. Sant Pal Singh Sidhu, Seni o r Advocate assisted by M s. Vini Rana, Advocate for th e appellant.

¶10

D r. (Ms.) Savi Nagpal, AAG, P u njab. *****

¶11

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ. J.(Oral)

¶12

T he present appeal has been pr e ferred against the judgment of convictio n dated 14.09.2011 and order o f sentence dated 17.09.2011 passed by J u dge, Special Court, Jalandhar, whereby the appellant was convicted u n der Section 15(b) of the Narc o tic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances A ct, 1985 and sentenced to un d ergo rigorous imprisonment for 03 years with a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default thereof,further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period o f three months. 2. B rief facts of the present case are that on 05.11.2007, SI Jatinderjit Singh, along with HC Jaswin d er Singh and other police officials, w a s holding a Naka at Sutlej C howk, Jalandhar, when he received sec r et information that Amrik Sin g h had beenpeddling poppy husk and tra n sporting it in a car bearing registration No. CH-01-Y-1923. Considering the information reliable, SI Jat i nderjit Singh sent a ruqa to the SHO of Police Station Division No. 6, Jalandhar, based on which FIR No. 39 4 dated 05.11.2007 was regist e redunder Section 15 of the

¶13

SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.03.19 15:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶14

-2-

¶15

403 CRA-S-2525-SB-2011 (O&M)

¶16

NDPS Act. Thereafter, a Naka was held at PAP Chowk. At about 11:00 AM, the accused arrived, driving the said car. On being signalled to stop, he halted the car but immediately jumped out and fled from the spot, leaving the vehicle behind. He was identified by an independent witness as Amrik Singh. During the search of the car, one bag containing poppy husk was recovered. The Investigating Officer took two samples of 250 grams each, sealed them into parcels, and the remaining 27 kg 500 grams was sealed in the same bag. The parcels were sealed with the seal bearing mark “JS”, and the seal after use was handed over to HC Jaswinder Singh. A seizure memo was prepared and attested. The driving licence of the accused was recovered from the dashboard of the car, and both the car and licence were taken into possession. A site plan of the place of recovery was also prepared. The case property was produced before the SHO Gurmit Singh, who affixed his seal “GS” on the parcels and deposited the case property with MHC Satish Kumar. On the next day, the case property was produced before the Judicial Magistrate, who passed an authentication-cum-retention order. The sample parcels were later sent to the Chemical Examiner, whose report confirmed that the contents were poppy husk. After completion of the investigation, the accused was arrested and challaned under Section 15 of the NDPS Act by filing a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.

¶17

After completion of the investigation, challan was presented against the appellant in the Court, where copies of the challan were supplied to him free of costs, as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

¶18

SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.03.19 15:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

-3-

¶20

403 CRA-S-2525-SB-2011 (O&M)

¶21

Finding a prima facie case under Section 15(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 against the appellant, charge was accordingly framed to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

¶22

On completion of the procedural compliances, parties led their respective evidence. The prosecution examined nine witnesses, and the evidence was thereafter closed.

¶23

The entire evidence was put to the appellant,and statements under Section 313 Cr. P.C. were recorded. The appellant denied the same. However, he examined one Surjit Singh as a defence witness.

¶24

On consideration of the evidence and hearing the arguments, the appellantwas convicted under Section 15(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 by the Special Court, Jalandhar vide judgment of conviction dated 14.09.2011 and order of sentence dated 17.09.2011 and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 03 years with a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default thereof to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. Hence, the present appeal.

¶25

Counsel for the appellant, at the outset, contends that he does not wish to challenge the conviction and restricts his prayer qua modification of the order on the quantum of sentence. He submits that the fine imposed by the Judge, Special Court, Jalandhar, already stands deposited and prays that the sentence imposed upon the appellant be modified and reduced to the period of custody already undergone. He points out the following mitigating circumstances:

¶26

SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.03.19 15:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶27

-4-

¶28

403 CRA-S-2525-SB-2011 (O&M)

¶29

(i) The occurrence pertains to the year 2007, and the appellant has faced the agony of protracted criminal proceedings for more than18 years, which in itself has had a considerable deterrent and punitive impact.

¶30

(ii) The appellant’s continued criminal incarceration is going to have an adverse impact on his health and wellbeing and discharge of his familial obligations.

¶31

(iii) The appellant’s sentence was suspended vide order dated 22.11.2011 after noticing that he had already undergone a period of approximately four months. He contends that there is nothing on record to suggest that the appellant has misused the concession of suspension of sentence granted to him.

¶32

(iv) Accordingly, it is prayed that the sentence imposed upon the appellant be reduced to the period already undergone.

¶33

Learned State counsel doesn’t have any major objection to the aforesaid prayer being granted.

¶34

I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and have gone through the impugned judgment.

¶35

Since the appellant has given up the challenge to the judgment of conviction on merits, the issues on the merits of conviction are not being gone into at this stage. The discussion is thus restricted solely to the issue of sentencing and quantum of punishment.

¶36

The purpose of sentencing being both deterrent and

¶37

SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.03.19 15:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶38

-5-

¶39

403 CRA-S-2525-SB-2011 (O&M)

¶40

reformative, hence, while sentencing an accused, factors such as the psychological and sociological circumstances of an accused; the gravity, nature and manner of committing the offence; the consequences, the social reaction to the offence; the antecedents and tendencies of an accused should be taken into consideration.

¶41

In the present case, there is nothing on record to reflect that the appellant possesses a criminal bent of mind or that his conduct poses any threat to society. Hence, by the broader principles of criminal jurisprudence, no adverse presumption can be drawn against the appellant.

¶42

This Court, in CRR-2697-2025 titled ‘Lakshay Jain v. State of Punjab & Another’ , vide order dated 14.11.2025, has held that sentencing must prioritise a reformative approach, assessing an offender’s background and circumstances rather than adopting a purely punitive stance. Mere involvement in an offence does not, by itself, establish criminality; instead, the totality of circumstances including the manner of the act, antecedents, conduct, and intent must guide sentencing. The law, therefore, distinguishes between errors of judgment and acts driven by deliberate mens rea, recognising that offenders are often capable of reform and should not be presumed beyond rehabilitation. The relevant extract of the aforesaid judgment are as follows:

¶43

“32. The imposition of punishment is a refined judicial function that demands a careful harmonization of its underlying purposes namely, retribution, deterrence, and reformation. This balance must reflect not only the

¶44

SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.03.19 15:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶45

-6-

¶46

403 CRA-S-2525-SB-2011 (O&M)

¶47

reasoning of the Court but also the ethical standards and social context in which justice is administered. As societal values and circumstances evolve, the prominence accorded to each of these aims necessarily varies, requiring the Court to adapt its emphasis in response to the changing demands of justice. The aforesaid principle found early articulation in the writings of Justice Caldwell, who, in his authoritative work “Criminology,” observed that:

¶48

“If the infliction of pain is to have its greatest effect upon the behavior of a person, it must follow soon after the act for which it is given. But punishment always takes place weeks or even months after the offense has been committed, since the offender must first be apprehended, tried, and convicted. Such delay tends to disconnect the punishment from the offense in the mind of the offender, and it may well be considered as merely another painful experience in an unjust world.”

¶49

33. Moreover, Italian criminologist and jurist Cesare Beccaria, in his seminal treatise “On Crimes and Punishments,” propounded the doctrine of penal parsimony, emphasizing that the justification of any criminal justice system rests upon its capacity to inflict the least possible evil necessary to achieve its ends. The underlying premise is that punishment, being in itself a necessary evil and devoid of inherent virtue, must be confined strictly within the bounds of necessity. The imposition of suffering or restriction upon an offender cannot extend beyond what is indispensable for the preservation of social order.

¶50

34. While ‘retributive’ object of sentencing is seen regressive, in modern day sentencing jurisprudence for its focus on punishing proportionally for the harm done and caters to the negative senses of spite and anger against a wrongful act, the rehabilitative/reformative approach

¶51

SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.03.19 15:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶52

-7-

¶53

403 CRA-S-2525-SB-2011 (O&M)

¶54

examines the circumstances surrounding the offender on social, economical, physical and psychological level so as to reintegrate the offender in the social mainstream. The law extends the benefit of good and perceives a probability and possibility of reform. It aims at capitalising a perceived social liability. The expectation of law is based on the surrounding circumstances to distinguish between a ‘criminal’ and an ‘offender’.

¶55

35. While the pre-requisites of crime do not distinguish two persons, on the legal scale, this aspect is significant for sentencing. A mere involvement of a person in crime may not necessarily mark a person as a ‘criminal.’ ‘Criminality’ in mind and action has to be determined from the totality of circumstances including the mode and manner in committing an offence, the conduct pre and post the offence, the criminal antecedents, nature of involvement, influence of peers etc. and not just from an isolatory consideration of commission of an offence. A Court of law would not assume every offender to be beyond reform and differentiate in punishment on considering whether the offences arise due to human error or that stem from actions propelled by mens rea.

¶56

36. The case in hand is yet another where interest of justice would warrant a reformative approach in precedence to a punitive or retributive approach. It is not the function of the judges to seek the transformation of human nature itself, but rather to shape the framework within which individuals perceive that adherence to the law aligns with their own best interests.”

¶57

Adverting to the facts of the present case and the mitigating

¶58

circumstances pointed out by counsel, the appellant has not indulged in any subsequent crime. He has undisputedly faced the agony of a criminal

¶59

SUMIT SINGH GUSAINtrial for more than 18 years. The appellant is a settled member of society 2026.03.19 15:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶60

-8-

¶61

403 CRA-S-2525-SB-2011 (O&M)

¶62

and prolonged incarceration will have an adverse impact on the education and well-being of his children as well as his own health and well-being.

¶63

Taking into consideration the facts and the mitigating circumstances as noticed above, I deem it appropriate to partly allow the petition. While maintaining the judgment of conviction, the order of sentence is modified. The sentence awarded to appellant-Amrik Singh by the Judge, Special Court, Jalandhar vide order dated 17.09.2011, is reduced to the period already undergone.

¶64

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶65

(VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) 16.03.2026 JUDGE SumitGusain Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No

¶66

SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.03.19 15:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Amrik Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amrik 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

Mandeep Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Another

Gurlal Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Manjit Kaur and Another Vs State of Punjab and Others

Jalaluddin Vs State of Haryana

Harjit Singh Alias Jita Vs State of Punjab

Nitin Garg Vs State of Punjab