Manoj v. State of Haryana

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. CRM-959-2024 At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant wishes to withdraw the application regarding suspension of sentence with a request to take up the main case for hearing and restricts his prayer to quantum of sentence. Dismissed as withdrawn. CRA-S-93-2024

¶1The instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated

19.12.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonipat in FIR No. 57 dated 16.10.2019 filed under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psy-chotropic Substances, 1985 (hereinafter 'NDPS Act') registered at Police Sta-tion HSIIDC, Bari, District Sonipat whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced as under: CRA-S-93-2024 (O&M) -2-2024:PHHC:036312 Offence Sentence Section 15B of the NDPS Rigorous imprisonment of 2 years and a fine of Act Rs. 10,000/-, in default of which simple imprisonment of 2 months FACTUAL BACKGROUND

¶2The facts, in brief, are that on 16.10.2019, a police party headed by ASI Hari Parkash was patrolling the area of Bega Road, Sahapur turn when they received a secret information regarding the appellant and co-accused De-vender indulging in sale of contraband. The police party reached the spot in half an hour and found two persons holding plastic bags, coming on foot from Ram Nagar side. They were apprehended on suspicion and a search was conducted in the presence of DSP Sandeep Kumar. In furtherance of the same, 4 kg 340g chura was recovered from the bag carried by the appellant.

¶3On finding a prima facie case, charge under Section 15 of NDPS Act was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses to prove its case. All the incrimin-ating evidence was put to the appellant-accused and in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. wherein he denied all evidence and pleaded false implication but did not lead any evidence in his defence.

¶4On assessing all the material available on record, the appellant was convicted by the learned trial Court vide judgment dated judgment dated

19.12.2023. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant preferred the instant appeal. CONTENTIONS

¶5Learned counsel for the appellant contends that he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated judgment dated 19.12.2023 on mer-its and restricts his prayer to modification of the order of quantum of sentence as the appellant has already undergone 3 months 22 days of actual custody. CRA-S-93-2024 (O&M) -3-2024:PHHC:036312

¶6Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the appel-lant as the learned trial Court has passed a well-reasoned judgment based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record and as such, he does not deserve any leniency. OBSERVATIONS AND ANALYSIS

¶7I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.

¶8In Deo Narain Mandal v. State State of UP (2004) 7 SCC 257, a three Judge bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has opined that awarding of sentence is not a mere formality in criminal cases. When a minimum and max-imum 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 com-mitted, age of the accused, should be considered while determining the quantum of sentence and this discretion is not to be used arbitrarily or whimsic-ally. 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. Further, a two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravada Sasikala v. 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 re-gard 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 CRA-S-93-2024 (O&M) -4-2024:PHHC:036312 committed and the conduct of the accused to strike a balance between the effic-acy of law and the chances of reformation of the accused.

¶9As per the custody certificate produced by the learned State coun-sel, details of custody period of the appellant are tabulated as under:- Sr Particulars Period Duration No.

¶1Custody under trial 17.10.2019 to 29 days

14.11.2019

¶2Custody after conviction 19.12.2023 to 2 months 23 days

11.03.2024

¶3Interim Bail --

¶4Actual custody period after 3 months 22 days conviction

¶5Actual undergone period 3 months 22 days

¶6Earned remission -

¶7Total sentence including 3 months 22 days remission

¶10A perusal of the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court indicates no perversity in their finding and the same are based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record. Moreover, learned counsel for the appellant has not assailed the judgment of conviction on merits, rather he has restricted his prayer only qua quantum of sentence. CONCLUSION

¶11The FIR in the present case was lodged on 16.10.2019 and the ap-pellant has been suffering the agony of trial since the last about 5 years. Since his conviction, the appellant has grown into a law-abiding citizen and desires to live a peaceful life. As per his custody certificate, out of the total sentence of 2 years in this case, he is not involved in any other criminal case and has under-gone actual sentence of 3 months 22 days. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice, if the sentence of rigorous im-CRA-S-93-2024 (O&M) -5-2024:PHHC:036312 prisonment of 2 years awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶12Consequently, the present appeal is disposed of in the following terms:-

(i) The judgment dated 19.12.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonipat convicting the appel-lant is upheld, however, the order of sentence is modified to the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 2 years along with default mechanism awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period of sentence already un-dergone by him.

(ii) The sentence of fine of an amount of Rs. 10,000/- imposed upon the appellant by the trial Court is increased to Rs.20,000/-. The appellant is directed to deposit the in-creased amount of fine in the trial Court within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and in case of default of payment of fine, the appellant shall be liable to be taken into custody and made to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.

¶13Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand dis-posed of. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE

12.03.2024

CRA-S-93-2024 (O&M) -1- 2024:PHHC:036312 216 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-959-2024 in/and CRA-S-93-2024 (O&M) Date of decision: 12.03.2024 Manoj ....Appellant Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Parveen Sharma, Advocate for the appellant Ms. Geeta Sharma, DAG Haryana