Sarabjit Kaur vs State Of Punjab
2026 Latest Caselaw 3991 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Sarabjit Kaur vs State Of Punjab on 30 April, 2026

                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                                           AT CHANDIGARH
           220
                                                        CRA-S-3412-SB-2012 (O&M)
                                                        Date of decision: 30.04.2026

           Sarabjit Kaur                                                  ...Appellant(s)

                                                    VERSUS

           State of Punjab                                               ...Respondent(s)


           CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ

           Present :-           Ms. Manveer Kahlon, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

                                Dr. (Ms.) Savi Nagpal, AAG Punjab.

                                  *****

           VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)

CRM-72638-2012 Application is allowed as prayed for subject to all just exceptions.

Main case:

1. The appellant has challenged the judgment of conviction and

order of sentence dated 22.11.2012 passed by the learned Judge, Special

Court, Amritsar whereby he was convicted in case bearing FIR No.35 dated

27.03.2007 registered under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and

Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 at Police Station Sultanwind, Amritsar,

and sentenced as under :-

                                  Section           Sentence and Find     In default thereof

                                  18     of    the RI for a period of 1 RI for a further
                                  N.D.P.S. Act     ½ years and a fine of period 02 months.
                                                   Rs.5,000/-.







           220                           CRA-S-3412-SB-2012 (O&M)

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that on

27.03.2007, SI Jagdish Raj, along with other police officials, was on

patrolling duty at T-Point, Khankot Bypass, when a secret informer provided

information that Hardip Singh (since deceased), a resident of Batala, was

habitually engaged in smuggling opium and that Sarabjit Kaur was

associated with him in the said activity. It was further informed that both

were travelling on a black motorcycle without a number plate and could be

apprehended if a naka was laid on the G.T. Road bypass. Acting upon the

said information, a naka was set up and an independent witness, Kirpal

Singh @ Pala, was joined. Shortly thereafter, a motorcycle approached the

naka. Upon being signalled to stop, the rider attempted to turn back abruptly,

resulting in the pillion rider, Sarabjit Kaur, falling to the ground, while the

rider managed to flee. Sarabjit Kaur was apprehended at the spot and the

identity of the fleeing motorcyclist was disclosed as Hardip Singh. It is

further the case of the prosecution that Sarabjit Kaur was found holding a

black purse emitting the smell of opium. After informing her of her legal

right to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, she

opted for the presence of a Gazetted Officer. Accordingly, DSP Kulwant

Singh was called to the spot and upon his arrival, the search of the purse was

conducted in his presence. The purse was found to contain opium, from

which two samples of 5 grams each were separated, while the remaining

contraband weighed 490 grams. The recovered substance was duly sealed

and necessary recovery proceedings were carried out. During investigation,

Sarabjit Kaur disclosed that she, along with Hardip Singh, had earlier

220 CRA-S-3412-SB-2012 (O&M)

brought a larger quantity of opium from Rajasthan and that the remaining

contraband was concealed at his residence. Hardip Singh, however, could

not be apprehended and later, after obtaining anticipatory bail, failed to join

investigation and was subsequently reported to have been murdered. The

case property was deposited in the police malkhana and the sample was sent

to the Chemical Examiner, who confirmed it to be opium. Upon completion

of investigation, the final report was presented before the learned Special

Judge, Amritsar.

3. Upon completion of investigation and presentation of the final

report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., charges were framed against the accused.

The prosecution thereafter led its evidence and upon conclusion thereof, the

statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In her

statement, the appellant denied all the allegations levelled against her and

pleaded innocence. It was her specific defence that she had been falsely

implicated in the present case on account of a grudge harboured by ASI

Harjit Singh, who was posted at Police Station Sultanwind. However, no

evidence in defence was led by the appellant.

4. Parties were heard at length and upon consideration thereof,

vide judgment dated 22.11.2012, the appellant was convicted for

commission of offence under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and

Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Vide order of sentence of even date, the

appellant was sentenced as above. Hence the present appeal.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has

vehemently contended that the mandatory provisions of Section 42 NDPS

Act and Section 50 NDPS Act have not been duly complied with, inasmuch

220 CRA-S-3412-SB-2012 (O&M)

as the secret information allegedly received by the police was neither

reduced into writing nor forwarded to the superior officers, thereby vitiating

the entire recovery. It is further contended that there exist material

discrepancies and inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution

witnesses, which cast a serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution case.

Learned counsel has also submitted that the appellant does not have any

prior criminal antecedents.

6. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the

submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant and contends that the

prosecution has been able to establish its case in its entirety. It is submitted

that the prosecution examined four witnesses and also led cogent

documentary evidence, which, when read cumulatively, sufficiently proves

the guilt of the appellant. It is further contended that all the mandatory

provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,

1985were duly complied with during the course of search, seizure and

investigation and no procedural infirmity can be attributed to the prosecution

case. Learned State counsel has also argued that there is no material on

record to suggest any ill-will, bias or ulterior motive on the part of the police

officials or any other person to falsely implicate the appellant. In such

circumstances, it is submitted that the conviction recorded by the Trial Court

is based on proper appreciation of evidence and does not call for any

interference.

7. At this stage, counsel for the appellant contends that she would

not press the instant appeal on merits and would confine her challenge only

to the quantum of punishment that has been so awarded. The following

220 CRA-S-3412-SB-2012 (O&M)

mitigating circumstances are pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner:

(i) The appellant is a woman of advanced age, presently

about 67 years old and the occurrence in question dates

back to March, 2007. Thus, a period of more than 19

years has elapsed, during which the matter has remained

pending, warranting a humane and balanced approach in

the matter of sentence.

(ii) The appellant has faced the ordeal of protracted criminal

proceedings for nearly two decades. Such prolonged

pendency, accompanied by the anxiety and stigma of

criminal prosecution, has itself operated as a significant

deterrent and has had a punitive effect upon her.

(iii) The incarceration suffered by the appellant has resulted in

considerable hardship to her family, particularly keeping

in view her age and familial responsibilities, thereby

adding to the mitigating circumstances in her favour.

(iv) It is not disputed that the appellant has no other criminal

antecedents and is not involved in any other case, which

reflects that the present occurrence is an isolated instance

and that she does not pose any continuing threat to

society.

(v) The appellant has already undergone actual custody of 01

month and 18 days out of the total sentence of 1½ years,

which, coupled with the long passage of time since the

occurrence, merits consideration.

220 CRA-S-3412-SB-2012 (O&M)

(vi) There is nothing on record to indicate that the appellant

has, at any stage, misused the concession of interim bail

granted to her, thereby demonstrating her adherence to

the process of law and her bona fides throughout the

proceedings.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and

have gone through the documents as well as the judgment of the Court.

9. Insofar as the contention regarding non-recording of secret

information in writing is concerned, the same does not merit acceptance. The

present case is one of chance recovery, where the interception of the accused

was not predicated upon any prior secret information. Consequently, the

rigours of Section 42 NDPS Act, which mandate prior recording and

communication of information, would not be attracted in the facts and

circumstances of the case.

10. In view of the stand adopted by learned counsel for the

appellant, whereby the challenge has been expressly confined to the

quantum of sentence, this Court does not deem it necessary to delve into the

merits of the conviction. Accordingly, the findings of guilt recorded by the

learned Trial Court are not being re-examined and the present adjudication is

restricted solely to the aspect of sentence.

11. This Court, in CRR-2697-2025 titled Lakshay Jain v. State of

Punjab & Another, vide order dated 14.11.2025, has held that sentencing

must prioritise a reformative approach, assessing an offender's background

and circumstances rather than adopting a purely punitive stance. Mere

involvement in an offence does not, by itself, establish criminality; instead,

220 CRA-S-3412-SB-2012 (O&M)

the totality of circumstances including the manner of the act, antecedents,

conduct, and intent must guide sentencing. The law, therefore, distinguishes

between errors of judgment and acts driven by deliberate mens rea,

recognising that offenders are often capable of reform and should not be

presumed beyond rehabilitation. The relevant extract of the aforesaid

judgment are as follows:

"32. The imposition of punishment is a refined judicial function

that demands a careful harmonization of its underlying

purposes namely, retribution, deterrence, and reformation. This

balance must reflect not only the reasoning of the Court but

also the ethical standards and social context in which justice is

administered. As societal values and circumstances evolve, the

prominence accorded to each of these aims necessarily varies,

requiring the Court to adapt its emphasis in response to the

changing demands of justice. The aforesaid principle found

early articulation in the writings of Justice Caldwell, who, in

his authoritative work "Criminology," observed that:

"If the infliction of pain is to have its greatest effect upon the

behavior of a person, it must follow soon after the act for which

it is given. But punishment always takes place weeks or even

months after the offense has been committed, since the offender

must first be apprehended, tried, and convicted. Such delay

tends to disconnect the punishment from the offense in the mind

of the offender, and it may well be considered as merely

another painful experience in an unjust world."

220 CRA-S-3412-SB-2012 (O&M)

33. Moreover, Italian criminologist and jurist Cesare Beccaria,

in his seminal treatise "On Crimes and Punishments,"

propounded the doctrine of penal parsimony, emphasizing that

the justification of any criminal justice system rests upon its

capacity to inflict the least possible evil necessary to achieve its

ends. The underlying premise is that punishment, being in itself

a necessary evil and devoid of inherent virtue, must be confined

strictly within the bounds of necessity. The imposition of

suffering or restriction upon an offender cannot extend beyond

what is indispensable for the preservation of social order.

34. While 'retributive' object of sentencing is seen regressive,

in modern day sentencing jurisprudence for its focus on

punishing proportionally for the harm done and caters to the

negative senses of spite and anger against a wrongful act, the

rehabilitative/reformative approach examines the

circumstances surrounding the offender on social, economical,

physical and psychological level so as to reintegrate the

offender in the social mainstream. The law extends the benefit

of good and perceives a probability and possibility of reform. It

aims at capitalising a perceived social liability. The expectation

of law is based on the surrounding circumstances to distinguish

between a 'criminal' and an 'offender'.

35. While the pre-requisites of crime do not distinguish two

persons, on the legal scale, this aspect is significant for

sentencing. A mere involvement of a person in crime may not

220 CRA-S-3412-SB-2012 (O&M)

necessarily mark a person as a 'criminal.' 'Criminality' in

mind and action has to be determined from the totality of

circumstances including the mode and manner in committing

an offence, the conduct pre and post the offence, the criminal

antecedents, nature of involvement, influence of peers etc. and

not just from an isolatory consideration of commission of an

offence. A Court of law would not assume every offender to be

beyond reform and differentiate in punishment on considering

whether the offences arise due to human error or that stem from

actions propelled by mens rea.".

12. 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.

13. 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 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

220 CRA-S-3412-SB-2012 (O&M)

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]".

14. In light of the circumstances noticed hereinabove and the

settled position of law, I am of the opinion that the appellant has made out a

case for reduction of sentence, particularly considering that she has already

undergone a period of 01 month and 18 days out of the total sentence of 1½

years. Further, the appellant has endured the ordeal of a prolonged criminal

trial spanning several years, which, in itself, has had a significant deterrent

and reformative impact. Having regard to her advanced age, socio-economic

circumstances, absence of any criminal antecedents and the period of

custody already undergone, this Court is satisfied that sufficient mitigating

factors exist warranting a lenient view. Accordingly, the ends of justice

would be adequately met by reducing the sentence of the appellant to the

period already undergone. However, the fine imposed by the learned Trial

Court is maintained in its entirety, along with the default stipulation attached

thereto.

15. In view of the above, the present appeal is partly allowed.

While upholding the conviction, the order of sentence is modified and the

order dated 22.11.2012 passed by the Judge, Special Court, Amritsar is

reduced to the period undergone and the sentence of fine and custody in

default thereof is maintained.

                                                           (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ)
           30.04.2026                                              JUDGE
           Mangal Singh
                      Whether speaking/reasoned :    Yes/No
                      Whether reportable        :    Yes/No