[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhvinder & Anr. vs State Of Haryana on 7 April, 2026
CRA-S-1483-SB-2012 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
220
CRA-S-1483-SB-2012 (O&M)
Date of decision: 07.04.2026
Sukhvinder and Another
....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
*****
Present : Mr. Rajbir Singh, Advocate for the appellants
Mr. Gautam Kaile, DAG Haryana
*****
AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)
1. By way of the present appeal, the appellants have challenged the
judgment/order dated 04/07.04.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Bhiwani, whereby they were convicted and sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for two years alongwith fine of Rs.20,000/- and in
default of payment of the same, to further undergo simple imprisonment for six
months, for the offence punishable under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act').
2. In a nutshell, the facts reveal that on 23.12.2010, ASI Om Parkash
along with other police official were present on Hisar-Rajgarh road, in
connection with patrolling duty, they saw two young boys coming from the
Rajgarh side, while carrying bags and on suspicion, they were apprehended and
after informing them about their rights, a search was conducted, leading to
recovery of 12.000 kgs of Chura post from the petitioner-Sukhvinder, while
8.000 kgs of doda post from the petitioner-Kaka Singh. Thereafter, the samples
were drawn and sealed. A ruqa was sent, based on which the FIR was
registered.
3. Upon conclusion of investigation, final report under Section 173
Cr.P.C. was submitted before the Court. Finding a prima facie case, the Court
framed charge under Sections 15 & 16 of the Act, to which the accused pleaded
not guilty and sought trial.
4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 7 witnesses
and the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
pleading not guilty, when the incriminating evidence was put to them and
alleged false implication.
5. The learned trial Court after hearing the learned counsel for the
parties, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants as noticed above.
6. Hence, appellant in appeal.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants, at the very outset, does not
wish to challenge the conviction, but prays for reducing the sentence to the
period already undergone, it being 3 months and 11 days, in view of the
quantity of recovered contraband that was only 12.000 kgs of Chura post and
8.000 kgs of doda post, which is marginally above the small quantity and falls
in "intermediate quantity"; they are not involved in any other case under this
Act; belong to the poor strata of society; never misused the concession of bail
and have been facing the agony of protracted trial for the last 25 years.
8. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, submits that the trial
Court has rightly convicted the appellants based on the evidence led by the
prosecution and adequately awarded the sentence, requiring no interference,
thus, prays for the dismissal of the present appeal.
9. Heard submissions and perused the material on record.
10. Though, the appellants have given up their challenge to the
conviction and restricted their prayer only with regard to reduction of their
sentence, the recovery being of non-commercial quantity. However, this Court
still deems it appropriate to examine the judgment of conviction. The trial Court
had thoroughly examined the evidence and observed that the prosecution has
proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellants. The recovery
was effected from them by following the proper procedure and there is nothing
on record to suggest that the appellants were falsely implicated in the case.
From the statements of the witnesses, the link of evidence appears to be
complete. Thus, the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants as referred to
above and there is no scope for interference in the findings recorded and
conclusion arrived at by it. As such, the conviction of the appellants is upheld.
11. Insofar as the prayer for reducing the sentence to the period already
undergone is concerned, it would be worthwhile to make a reference to the
judgment in S.K. Sakkar @ Mannan vs. State of West Bengal, (2021) 4 SCC
483, wherein the accused was convicted under Section 20 of the Act and Hon'ble
the Supreme 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.
12. Similarly in Minder Singh @ Landa vs. State of Punjab, CRA-
S-2190-SB-2007, decided on 01.04.2025, keeping in view the recovery effected
being intermediate quantity i.e. 30 kg of poppy husk and the fact that he is
facing the agony of trial for last more than 18 years, this Court reduced the
sentence of the accused-appellant from 2 years to 2 months and 25 days, as
undergone.
13. Furthermore, in Naresh Kumar vs. State of Haryana in CRA-S-
796-SB-2005, decided on 24.02.2023, the sentence of the appellant i.e. 3 years
and 6 months, convicted under Section 15 of the Act, was modified to the period
undergone i.e. 8 months and 25 days already, by holding that no useful purpose
will be served by sending him to jail after 22 years from the date of incident, in
view of the fact that he was only about 28 years old at that time.
14. In Dharambir vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh 2004(1) RCR
(Crl.) 704, wherein the recovery of contraband was of non-commercial, it being
100 gms of charas, despite that the trial Court awarded the maximum
punishment of 10 years, this Court reduced the sentence to the period already
undergone i.e. 16 months as well as fine from Rs.two lacs to Rs.5000/-.
15. Humanistically viewing, the appellants having suffered the
ignominy of trial since long; successfully warded off their crime-proneness-an
evident learning of a lesson; their socio-economic circumstances, this Court
finds extenuation to be implicit. Thus, it would serve the ends of justice to
reduce their sentence to the period already undergone, however, keeping the
fine intact.
16. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
(AMAN CHAUDHARY)
JUDGE
07.04.2026
M.Kamra
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No
Whether reportable : Yes / No
