The High Court of Punjab and Haryana clarified that, notwithstanding upholding the conviction under Section 22 of the NDPS Act, sentencing may be reduced to the period already undergone based on mitigating factors. The decision affirms existing judicial discretion in sentencing for certain NDPS offences and provides binding authority for subordinate courts considering sentence modification in analogous circumstances.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRA-S/2709/2025 of MITHUN Vs STATE OF PUNJAB |
| CNR | PHHC011395332025 |
| Date of Registration | 29-08-2025 |
| Decision Date | 01-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED OF |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Bench | Single Bench: MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within Punjab and Haryana |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms trial court conviction; modifies sentence |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law (NDPS Act, Sentencing Policy) |
| Questions of Law | Whether the sentence for conviction under Section 22 NDPS Act can be reduced to “already undergone” in presence of mitigating circumstances, absent challenge to conviction on merits. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court held that if an accused, convicted under Section 22 of the NDPS Act and not challenging the conviction on merits, demonstrates sufficient mitigating circumstances such as having undergone a significant portion of the sentence and facing prolonged trial, their sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone. The power of the appellate court to reduce the sentence is exercisable on consideration of overall circumstances, even if the conviction is affirmed. The discretion takes into account the period in custody and other relevant mitigating factors as demonstrated from the record. The conviction, however, remains intact. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The appellant was apprehended with 40 grams of intoxicant powder, failed to produce any licence, and was convicted under Section 22 NDPS Act to 6 months RI. As of 01.09.2025, had undergone 1 month and 21 days imprisonment. Did not contest conviction on merits, sought reduction only on sentence. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Punjab and Haryana |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, especially in sentencing appeals under NDPS Act |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The judgment clarifies that even when conviction under Section 22 NDPS Act is not challenged, the appellate court retains discretion to reduce the sentence to “already undergone” due to mitigating circumstances.
- Lawyers may cite this authority to seek reduction of sentence for NDPS offences where circumstances justify leniency, even without contesting the conviction itself.
- The period of incarceration already served and the ongoing rigors of criminal proceedings since the FIR are recognized as strong mitigating factors for sentencing decisions.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court noted that the appellant did not contest the conviction on merits and only sought leniency in sentence based on mitigation.
- After reviewing the custody certificate, it was established that the appellant had already served 1 month and 21 days of the 6-month sentence.
- The court considered the period already undergone in custody and the fact that the appellant had faced trial since 2021 as mitigating circumstances.
- The court exercised its discretionary power to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone while expressly maintaining the conviction intact.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- Did not challenge the conviction on merits.
- Prayed specifically for leniency and reduction of sentence to that already undergone citing mitigating circumstances, such as prolonged incarceration and rigors of trial.
Respondent (State):
- Opposed the plea for sentence reduction.
- Submitted custody certificate reflecting actual sentence undergone.
Factual Background
The appellant was apprehended by police while carrying 40 grams of intoxicant powder on 14.06.2021, failed to produce any licence for the same, and was arrested on the spot. He was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, under Section 22 NDPS Act, and sentenced to 6 months’ rigorous imprisonment. At the appellate stage, he did not contest the conviction but sought reduction in sentence, having already undergone over a month in custody.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 was central to the conviction.
- The appellate court exercised its jurisdiction to modify the sentence based on the facts and mitigating circumstances, without disturbing the conviction.
- No detailed statutory interpretation or expanded reading noted in the decision.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment applies established law regarding appellate power to modify sentences where justified by mitigating factors, without disturbing the conviction.