Sentencing Is Not a Ritual—It Must Reflect Fairness, Reform, and Proportionality: Punjab & Haryana High Court Reduces NDPS Sentence

“When the Accused Has Faced 14 Years of Trial and Shown Peaceful Conduct, Justice Lies Not in Further Punishment, But in Closure”— Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld the conviction of an accused for possession of 20 kilograms of poppy husk under Section 15 of the NDPS Act, but reduced the sentence to the period already undergone in custody—just over four months—invoking the principle of proportionality in sentencing, the right to speedy trial, and the reformatory purpose of criminal law.

Justice H.S. Grewal declared that “awarding of sentence is not a mere formality in criminal cases,” and noted that punishment must balance the nature of offence with the circumstances and conduct of the offender, especially when the statutory minimum is not mandatory.

“Four Months in Jail, Fourteen Years on Trial—The Law Cannot Be Blind to Time Already Served by the Accused”

The incident dates back to 21 January 2011, when Balkar Singh was found in possession of 20 kilograms of poppy husk by the police at Police Station Bariwala, Sri Muktsar Sahib, leading to FIR No. 5 under Sections 15/61/85 of the NDPS Act.

On 09 August 2012, the Special Court at Sri Muktsar Sahib convicted him and sentenced him to 1.5 years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 5,000.

However, in appeal, the accused did not challenge the conviction on merits, but only sought reduction in sentence to the period already undergone, pleading that he had been in custody for 4 months and 2 days, had faced trial for over 14 years, and had no other criminal record.

“Punishment Must Not Be Excessively Harsh or Arbitrarily Lenient—It Must Serve Justice, Not Vengeance”

The High Court, invoking the Supreme Court's ruling in Deo Narain Mandal v. State of UP (2004) 7 SCC 257, emphasized that sentencing must never be mechanical or detached from real-life context. Justice Grewal stated:

“When a minimum and maximum term is prescribed by statute... discretion is vested in the Court. The background of each case, including gravity of offence, age, manner of commission, and conduct of the accused must be weighed.”

The Court further relied on Ravada Sasikala v. State of A.P. (AIR 2017 SC 1166) to underscore that sentencing also serves a social and reformative purpose, and must take into account the possibility of rehabilitation, not just deterrence.

“No Perversity in Conviction, But Ends of Justice Demand Closure, Not Further Incarceration”—Court Declares Time Already Served as Sufficient

While affirming the conviction, the High Court clearly recorded that the findings of the Trial Court were not perverse, and the accused had been rightly convicted for possession of contraband. However, Justice Grewal held that the interests of justice would be best served by modifying the sentence to “the period already undergone.”

The Court observed: “The appellant has already suffered the agony of protracted trial, spanning over 14 years… He is living peacefully and is not involved in any other case. The right to speedy trial is one of the most cherished rights guaranteed under the Constitution.”

It added that this lenient approach was consistent with prior Supreme Court rulings in Haripada Das v. State of West Bengal (1998) 9 SCC 678 and Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 2 SCC 648, which permitted sentence reduction based on conduct, passage of time, and absence of aggravating factors.

“Liberty Cannot Be Imprisoned by Delay Alone”—Court Increases Fine but Frees Accused from Further Custody

In lieu of extending imprisonment, the Court decided to increase the fine from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 10,000, payable within a month. Failure to do so would result in one additional month of rigorous imprisonment.

“The sentence imposed upon the appellant is reduced to the one already undergone by him... He need not surrender. His bail bonds are discharged,” the Court directed.

This judgment stands as a beacon of balanced sentencing, highlighting that justice is not served by punishing for the sake of punishment, especially when the accused has shown peaceful conduct, suffered prolonged litigation, and the offence is not of grave societal impact. By invoking the reformatory approach, the Punjab & Haryana High Court reminded the judicial system that “law must punish, but not persecute.”

“Four months in jail and fourteen years in courtrooms—is that not punishment enough?” the judgment asks implicitly, offering not just a legal answer, but a humane one.

Date of Decision: 11.09.2025