PUNJAB AND HARYANA v. VINOD S. BHARDWAJ

station, on the basis of which a formal FIR was registered. Compliance with Sections 55, 52-A, and 57 of the NDPS Act was completed. The sample was sent to the Chemical Examiner, and after completion of the investigation and receipt of the report, the accused was challaned in the case.

3. After completion of investigation, challan against the appellant was presented in the Court and copy was supplied to her free of costs, as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

4. 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 she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

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

6. The entire evidence was put to appellant and statements under Section 313 Cr. P.C. were recorded. The appellant denied the same. However, no defence evidence was led by her. SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.03.18 18:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 409 CRA-S-2619-SB-2011 (O&M) -3-

7. On consideration of the evidence and hearing arguments, the appellant was convicted under Section 15(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 by the Special Judge, Moga vide judgment of conviction/order of sentence dated

12.10.2011 and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 02 years with a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default thereof to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months. Hence, the present appeal.

8. Counsel for the appellant, at the outset, contends that he does not wish to challenge the conviction on merits and restricts his prayer qua modification of the order on quantum of sentence. He submits that the fine imposed by the Special Judge, Moga 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 the following mitigating circumstances: (i) The occurrence pertains to the year 2008 and the appellant has faced the agony of protracted criminal proceedings for nearly 18 years which in itself has had a considerable deterrent and punitive impact. (ii) That the appellant is a first-time offender with clean antecedents and has not been involved in any other criminal case. (iii) The appellant is around 50 years of age and her continued criminal incarceration is going to have adverse impact on her health and well-being and discharge of her familial obligations. SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.03.18 18:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 409 CRA-S-2619-SB-2011 (O&M) -4- (iv) The appellant’s sentence was suspended vide order dated 29.11.2011 after noticing that she has already undergone a period of two months. He contends that there is nothing on record to suggest that appellant has misused the concession of suspension of sentence granted to her. (v) Accordingly, it is prayed that the sentence imposed upon the appellant be reduced to the period already undergone.

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

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

11. Since the appellant has given up the challenge to the judgment of conviction on merits, hence, the issues on 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.

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

13. In the present case, there is nothing on record to reflect that the appellant possesses a criminal bent of mind or that her conduct poses any threat to the society. Hence, by the broader principles of criminal SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.03.18 18:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 409 CRA-S-2619-SB-2011 (O&M) -5- jurisprudence, no adverse presumption can be drawn against the revisionist-appellant.

14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pramod Kumar Mishra Vs. State of UP (2023) 9 SCC 810, observed that punishment must not be viewed as an act of vengeance but as a means of reformation and reintegration of the offender into society. It was further held that an appropriate sentence must be determined by considering a range of factors, including the nature and circumstances of the offence, the offender’s background, age, mental and emotional condition, potential for rehabilitation, prior criminal record, and the deterrent needs of the community. Sentencing, the Court noted, involves a delicate exercise of judicial discretion where multiple social, psychological, and moral factors must be balanced to ensure that justice serves both societal protection and individual redemption.

15. 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, is being referred to wherein the accused was convicted under Section 20 of the Act and Hon’ble Apex 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.

16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satish @ Sabbe vs. State of U.P., (2021) 14 SCC 580, 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 SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.03.18 18:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 409 CRA-S-2619-SB-2011 (O&M) -6- 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]”.

17. Adverting to the facts of the present case and the mitigating circumstances pointed out by counsel for the appellant establish that appellant is a first-time offender with no other criminal antecedents and has not indulged in any subsequent crime. She has undisputedly faced agony of criminal trial for almost 18 years. She is a settled member of society and prolonged incarceration will have an adverse impact on the education and well being of her children as well as on her health and well-being.

18. 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-Baljit Kaur by Special Judge, Moga is modified and reduced to sentence already undergone.

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

16.03.2026 SumitGusain (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) JUDGE SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.03.18 18:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable : : Yes/No Yes/No