Sukhdev Singh vs State Of Pb.

Court
Punjab and Haryana High Court

1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

125 CRA-S-1844-SB-2005 (O&M)
Date of decision : 02.11.2026

Sukhdev Singh @Sukha
..... Appellant
VERSUS
State of Punjab
..... Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH

Present : Mr. Anmol Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab.

*

SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.



The present appeal has been filed by the appellant against the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.10.2005, passed by
the Court of learned Special Judge (designated under Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985), hereinafter being referred to as ‘trial
Court’ only.
2. Briefly stating the facts emerging from record are that one FIR,
i.e. FIR No.125 dated 23.07.2003, was registered at the instance of ‘ASI Brij
Lal’. The abovesaid FIR was lodged for the commission of offence
punishable under Section-15 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
Act, hereinafter being referred to as ‘NDPS Act’, Police Station Subhanpur.
In the wake of abovementioned FIR, the investigation was taken up by the
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.11.03 14:01
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

2
police, and as an outcome of abovesaid investigation, the appellant was sent
to face trial before the learned trial Court.
3. The appellant participated in the abovementioned trial. By
virtue of judgment dated 07.10.2005, hereinafter being referred to as
‘impugned judgment’, the abovesaid trial culminated into conviction of the
appellant. Thus, vide order of the even date, i.e. dated 07.10.2005, on the
point of quantum of sentence, hereinafter being referred to as ‘impugned
order’, following sentences were awarded to the appellant:-

Offence under
Sentence
Section


15 of NDPS Act
Rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to
pay a fine of Rs.20,000/-. In default thereof to further
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three
months.



4. In nut-shell, the facts emerging from record are that the FIR of
this case came into being when ‘ ASI Brij Lal’ reported that on 23.07.2003,
at about 02:20 pm, when he was leading a team of police officials, deputed
for patrolling duty and checking vehicles at Hamira Chowk, he spotted a
black-coloured scooter bearing registration No.PCB-2966, coming from the
side of Village Dualpur. As per above-named police officer, a signal was
given to the scooterist to stop. According to above-named police officer, the
abovesaid scooter was being driven by ‘Sukhdev Singh’ (the appellant
herein), and that on checking a plastic bag lying in front of the scooter was
found, containing 10 kg of poppy husk.
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.11.03 14:01
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

3
5. It was a case of the prosecution that pursuant on recovery of
abovementioned contraband, necessary formalities with regard to seizure &
sealing of contraband, lodging of FIR, and formal arrest of the accused were
completed, and further investigation taken up. According to prosecution,
during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer inspected the
spot, prepared rough site plan of the place of recovery, and completed usual
formalities of investigation. Thereafter, the final report under Section 173 of
CrPC was filed in the Court.
6. Heard.
7. It has been contended on behalf of appellant that the impugned
judgment of conviction and order of sentence, passed by the learned trial
Court were perverse and unsustainable. According to learned counsel for the
appellant, merely on the basis of assumptions and presumptions, the
unreliable and self-contradictory evidence adduced by the prosecution was
believed by the learned trial Court. As per learned counsel for the appellant ,
the learned trial Court failed to apply judicial mind to the facts of the case,
and merely, on the basis of conjectures and surmises, the finding of
conviction of appellant, for the commission of offence under Section 15 of
NDPS Act, was recorded.
8. It has been further contended on behalf of appellant that the
learned trial Court ignored this cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence
that the prosecution had to prove its case beyond the shadow of all
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.11.03 14:01
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

4
reasonable doubts. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the
evidence adduced by the prosecution was grossly inadequate to draw an
inference that all the essential ingredients, meant for the commission of
offence, for which the appellant was convicted, had been proved. In view of
above, the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the case
against the appellant was not proved by the prosecution, but erroneously the
learned trial Court returned the finding of conviction.
9. However, during the course of arguments, the learned counsel
for the appellant has contended that in the instant appeal, the appellant is not
inclined to challenge the finding of conviction recorded by the learned trial
Court. The learned counsel for the appellant has categorically contended that
at this stage, by virtue of present appeal, the appellant is challenging the
order on the point of quantum of sentence only.
10. It has been further contended by learned counsel for the
appellant that the incident had taken place way back in the year 2003.
According to learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant is facing the
agony of litigation for the last more than 23 years and has, in fact, already
suffered more punishment than he deserved. According to learned counsel
for the appellant, before or after the offence, related to present case, the
appellant has not been prosecuted for any other offence.
11. In addition to above, the learned counsel for the appellant and
has also argued that the quantity of contraband recovered in this case was
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.11.03 14:01
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

5
within the ambit of ‘non-commercial quantity’ and that in the present case,
the appellant ‘Sukhdev Singh’ has already undergone imprisonment for a
period of six months and twenty days. According to learned counsel for the
appellant, in view of above-discussed factors, and the fact that minimum
sentence has not been prescribed for the offence, for which the appellant has
been convicted, the sentence already undergone by the appellant may be
treated to be sufficient.
12. Per contra , the learned counsel for the respondent/State has
argued that the appellant was found guilty for the commission of offence
punishable under Section 15 of NDPS Act. According to learned counsel for
the respondent/State, the sentence awarded to the appellant, i.e.
imprisonment for a period of two years, is already on lower side, and that the
appellant is not entitled to a sentence, awarded to him. As per learned
counsel for the respondent/State, the instant appeal has no merits and
deserves dismissal.
13. The record has been perused carefully.
14. Although it is categorical stand of the appellant that he is not
challenging the judgment of conviction, passed by the learned trial Court,
yet, with a purpose to evaluate evidence, the record has been perused
carefully. A perusal of trial Court record shows that the evidence adduced by
the prosecution was thoroughly consistent, and good enough to bring home
guilt of the appellant, for which he was charge-sheeted. Thus, it is hereby
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.11.03 14:01
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

6
held that there is no scope for interference or indulgence in the findings
recorded by the learned trial Court, with regard to conviction of appellant,
for the offence under Section 15 of NDPS Act. Accordingly, the
abovementioned finding is hereby affirmed and qua the judgment of
conviction instant appeal is hereby dismissed.
15. As far as the order on quantum of sentence is concerned, in
view of the fact that the appellant ‘Sukhdev Singh’ has already undergone
imprisonment for a period of six months and twenty days, against the
awarded sentence of two years, it is hereby held that the appellant is entitled
to a lenient view.
16. In the light of above observations, if factual matrix of the
present case is analyzed, it transpires that following are the points which are
required to be taken into consideration: -
(a) that the quantity of contraband recovered in this case was
non-commercial quantity, for which minimum sentence has
not been prescribed;
(b) that the incident in question had taken place about 23 years
ago;
(b) that the appellant is facing the agony of protracted trial for
the last more than 23 years;
(c) that against the awarded sentence of two years, the appellant
‘Sukhdev Singh’ has already undergone imprisonment for a
period of six months and twenty days;
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.11.03 14:01
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

7
(d) that it was the first offence committed by the appellant;
(e) that in the last more than 23 years, the appellant has not
been prosecuted for any offence; and
(f) that now the age of the appellant ‘Sukhdev Singh’ is more
than 43-year-old.

17. In view of abovementioned observations, the sentence awarded
to the appellant is hereby held to be harsh and, as a consequence thereof, it is
hereby observed that with regard to quantum of sentence, there is need for
interference and indulgence in the impugned order, i.e. the order on the point
of quantum of sentence, by exercising the appellate jurisdiction vested in
this Court. Thus, in my opinion, by exercising the abovementioned
jurisdiction, the sentence awarded to the appellant needs to be rationalized
and reduced.
18. As a cumulative effect of abovementioned observations, it is
hereby held that in the present case, the appellant is entitled to a lenient
view, and that the sentence already undergone in the present case, is
adequate to meet the ends of justice.
19. As a sequel to the aforesaid discussions, the present appeal is
hereby partly allowed . The judgment of conviction is upheld; but order on
the point of quantum of sentence is modified, and the sentence awarded to
the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him.
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.11.03 14:01
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

8
20. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed
of, accordingly.


(SURYA PARTAP SINGH)

JUDGE

02.11.2026
Gaurav Thakur

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.11.03 14:01
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document