The Punjab & Haryana High Court reiterates that the quantum of sentence under Section 15 of the NDPS Act—where no minimum is prescribed—can be reduced considering prolonged delay in trial, the convict’s conduct, and other mitigating factors. Maintains established precedent and serves as binding authority within its jurisdiction, providing practical sentencing guidance for trial courts and counsel in NDPS cases.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRA-S/296/2011 of TARSEM SINGH @ SEMI Vs STATE OF PUNJAB |
| CNR | PHHC010149702011 |
| Date of Registration | 01-02-2011 |
| Decision Date | 01-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED OF |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE H.S. GREWAL |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding within jurisdiction; reaffirmation of sentencing discretion principle |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms conviction, modifies sentence |
| Type of Law | Criminal law – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS) |
| Questions of Law | Whether sentencing under Section 15 of the NDPS Act can be reduced due to prolonged trial and mitigating factors |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court emphasized that sentencing, where no statutory minimum is prescribed, is a matter of judicial discretion. In determining quantum of sentence, courts must consider factors such as the gravity of the offence, circumstances of the case, length and delay in trial, the accused’s behavior, and prospects of reformation. The right to speedy trial carries significant weight; where a convict has suffered a long protracted trial and has otherwise maintained good conduct, reduction of sentence to the period already undergone may justly serve the ends of justice. The decision harmonises with Supreme Court and prior High Court rulings on the issue. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Supreme Court guidelines on sentencing proportionality and relevance of mitigating circumstances; principle of speedy trial under the Constitution; value of reformation and deterrence in sentencing. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Appellant was found in possession of 10.200 kg poppy husk in 2006, convicted and sentenced in 2011 to six months’ imprisonment and fine. He has already undergone 1 month 24 days imprisonment and experienced a trial spanning over 19 years. There is no evidence of subsequent offence or negative conduct. The appeal sought modification of sentence to period already undergone. |
| Citations |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts of Punjab and Haryana |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts; may be cited for sentencing mitigation in NDPS cases across India |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that the absence of a statutory minimum sentence empowers courts to exercise real sentencing discretion under Section 15 of the NDPS Act.
- Explicitly recognises that a protracted trial (19 years in this case) is a substantive mitigating factor warranting reduction of sentence.
- Underscores the principle that right to speedy trial is integral to justice and may justify leniency at the sentencing stage.
- Imprisonment can be reduced to the period already undergone if accused has shown good conduct and has not reoffended.
- Fines may be appropriately increased even where custodial sentence is reduced, to balance proportionality.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The judgment starts by noting the conviction was on sound evidence and is not being challenged on merits.
- The appeal is confined to modification of sentence, considering the accused has undergone part of the sentence and has not reoffended.
- Section 15 of the NDPS Act prescribes no minimum sentence for the quantum involved in this case, vesting wide discretion in sentencing courts.
- The Court refers to “Deo Narain Mandal v. State of UP” for principles: when sentencing involves discretion, courts must judiciously consider all attendant circumstances, including nature and gravity of offence, manner of commission, age and status of accused, and principle of proportionality.
- Refers to “Ravada Sasikala v. State of AP” on reformation and social deterrence as aims of sentencing.
- Cites additional authorities (“Haripada Das”, “Alister Anthony Pareira”) on proportionality and fair sentencing, particularly when accused has endured long trials and no negative conduct is shown.
- Emphasises that right to speedy and expeditious trial is a constitutional guarantee and prolonged trial is an established mitigating ground.
- Concludes by reducing the imprisonment to period already undergone, raising the fine to Rs. 5,000/- to meet the ends of justice.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant):
- Did not contest the conviction on merits.
- Sought reduction of sentence to the period already undergone (1 month 24 days out of 6 months awarded).
- Argued for leniency since FIR dated back to 2006, with nearly two decades elapsed, and sought consideration of delay and hardships suffered.
Respondent (State):
- Opposed reduction of sentence; asserted trial court’s order was based on proper appreciation of evidence.
- Filed custody certificate.
- Did not dispute that appellant is not involved in any other case.
Factual Background
The appellant was found in possession of 10.200 kg of poppy husk in 2006 and was charged under Section 15/61/85 of the NDPS Act at Police Station Israna, Patiala. The Special Court, Patiala convicted him on 22.01.2011, sentencing him to six months’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant had already undergone 1 month 24 days of imprisonment. The trial and proceedings spanned over 19 years. There was no evidence of his involvement in any subsequent offences.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 15 of the NDPS Act was the principal provision interpreted.
- The Court notes that for the quantity in question, the statute does not fix a minimum sentence, granting the court discretion regarding quantum of punishment.
- Emphasises the constitutional right to a speedy trial as a relevant consideration when exercising sentencing discretion.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural guidelines or innovations are set out in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing law on sentencing discretion and the right to speedy trial is reaffirmed and applied.
Citations
- Deo Narain Mandal v. State of UP (2004) 7 SCC 257
- Ravada Sasikala v. State of AP, AIR 2017 SC 1166
- Haripada Das v. State of West Bangal (1998) 9 SCC 678
- Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra, 2012 2 SCC 648