Alprazolam-Tablet Convict Had Served 1 Year Of 2-Year Term; Punjab & Haryana HC Weighs Sentence Reduction

In brief

The question

Whether the appellant’s substantive sentence should be reduced to the period already undergone, having regard to the mitigating circumstances and the principle of proportionality

The court held

The excerpt does not contain the final holding or operative order.

It also directed

It therefore does not establish whether the sentence was reduced or what relief, if any, was granted

01Facts

The trial court convicted the appellant after finding that he was in conscious possession of intoxicant tablets containing Alprazolam.

¶ 4

It sentenced him to two years’ rigorous imprisonment, a fine of ₹25,000, and, in default of payment, a further six months’ rigorous imprisonment; the co-accused was acquitted

¶ 4

On appeal, the appellant did not challenge his conviction and sought reduction of his sentence to the period already undergone, relying on the non-commercial quantity, his role as sole breadwinner, and the time spent facing prosecution

¶ 6

The State reported that he had served one year and 12 days and had been involved in two other cases; counsel for the appellant stated that he had been released on probation in both

¶ 7–8

02Issues

i.Whether the appellant’s substantive sentence should be reduced to the period already undergone, having regard to the mitigating circumstances and the principle of proportionality

¶ 6, 10–12

03Law Applied

Sentencing must be proportionate to the gravity and circumstances of the offence, balancing deterrence, punishment, and reformation.

¶ 12

The judgment relies on Uggarsain v. State of Haryana, (2023) 8 SCC 109, for the principle that sentencing should be guided by proportionality and the facts of the case

¶ 12

It also cites Israfil @ Pappu @ Naimuddin Khan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2026 INSC 654, for the proposition that, while maintaining a conviction, a court may reduce substantive sentence in light of factors such as the passage of time, the sentence already undergone, and other mitigating circumstances

¶ 13

Provisions in the judgment · 4 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 313

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 304 Section 467 Section 468

04Reasoning

The appellant confined his appeal to sentence, leaving the conviction unchallenged

¶ 10

In considering whether to reduce the sentence, the court noted the appellant’s time already served, the circumstances advanced in mitigation, and counsel’s submission that he had received probation in the two other cases

¶ 6–8

Applying the proportionality principle and the cited authorities on sentencing, the court considered whether those circumstances justified reducing the remaining custodial term

¶ 11–13

The supplied excerpt does not include the court’s final application or disposition.