RITIK RATHORE vs STATE OF HP

2026:HHC:19758
High Court of H.P.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA
Cr. Appeal (C-DB) No. 23 of 2025
Reserved on: 7.5.2026
Date of decision: 26.5. 2026
Ritik Rathore. …Appellant.
Versus
State of H.P. …Respondent.
Corum
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge.
1
Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
For the Appellant. Ms. Madhurika Sekhon, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr.Raj Negi, Deputy Advocate General.

Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge
Appellant has filed this appeal against judgment dated
23.9.2025 passed by Special Judge Rohru, District Shimla, H.P. in case
CIS Filing No. 82/2025, titled as State of H.P. Vs. Ritik Rathore and
others, in Case FIR No. 88 of 2024, dated 21.11.2024, registered in
Police Station, Chirgaon, District Shimla, H.P. under Sections 21 and 29
of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short
the ‘NDPS Act’), whereby appellant Ritik Rathore has been convicted for
1
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes
::: Downloaded on - 26/05/2026 12:01:21 :::CIS

2 2026:HHC:19758
High Court of H.P.
commission of offence punishable under Section 21 of the NDPS Act,
whereas co-accused Pradevan Chauhan and Vivek have been acquitted
of the charges framed against them.
2. On completion of Trial, Trial Court had concluded that it
has been proved on record beyond reasonable doubt that appellant Ritik
Rathore is guilty of commission of offence under Sections 21 and 29 of
the NDPS Act, for having found in possession of 13 grams Heroin and
accordingly appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of 1,00,000/- for commission
₹
of offence punishable under Section 21 of the NDPS Act and in default
of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for 1 year.
3. On 17.4.2026 learned counsel for the appellant had
submitted that in terms of instructions received by her, she would not be
pursuing appeal on merits, but only with respect to disproportionate
quantum of sentence imposed upon the appellant for recovery of
intermediate quantity of contraband and has advocated for reduction of
sentence on this count.
4. On 17.4.2026, after conclusion of the submissions made by
both sides, matter was adjourned for 24.4.2026 by granting time to the
appellant to search case law in support of plea of the appellant. On
24.4.2026, it was adjourned for 27.4.2026 and then for 29.4.2026.
::: Downloaded on - 26/05/2026 12:01:21 :::CIS

3 2026:HHC:19758
High Court of H.P.
5. In view of submissions made by learned counsel for the
appellant, there is no necessity to refer, re-produce or discuss the
evidence led by the prosecution and findings returned by the Trial court
leading to conviction of the appellant and the only issue required to be
adjudicated is whether quantum of sentence imposed upon the appellant
is in consonance with settled law of land and proportionate to the
sentence provided for different quantities of contraband.
6. To substantiate her plea, learned counsel for the appellant
has referred judgments passed by different Benches of this High Court
including Single Bench, which are as under:-
(i) Cr. Appeal No. 540 of 2024 , titled as Yashpal
Thakur Vs. State of H.P. , dated 26.8.2025.
(ii) Cr. Appeal No. 204 of 2024 , titled as Digvijay Singh
Vs. State of H.P . dated 12.8.2025.
(iii) Cr. Appeal No. 501 of 2024 , titled as Saurabh
Bhatnagar Vs. State of H.P. , dated 14.5.2025.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant has also referred order
dated 3.12.2025 passed by the Apex court in Cr. Appeal No. 5226 of
2025, (SLP (Cr.) No. 15041 of 2025, titled as Raju Vs. State of Himachal
Pradesh, whereby sentence imposed upon the appellant for five years
by the Trial Court, for having been found in possession of 850 grams of
charas, confirmed by this High Court vide judgment dated 8.8.2025,
passed in Cr. Appeal No. 574 of 2023, has been modified and being first
::: Downloaded on - 26/05/2026 12:01:21 :::CIS

4 2026:HHC:19758
High Court of H.P.
offender, sentence has been reduced to period already undergone
incarnation for more than two years.
8. Learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that
judgments of this High Court referred by learned counsel for the
appellant have been passed by learned Single Judge and, therefore,
they are not binding precedent upon the Division Bench and appellant is
also involved in another similar case and, therefore, he does not deserve
reduction of sentence.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that
pendency of another case cannot be taken into consideration for
determining the quantum of sentence and, though the judgments, relied
upon by her have been passed by learned Single Judge, however, ratio
of law related to proportionality of quantum of sentence is relevant for
considering her plea and, therefore, according to her prayer for reduction
of sentence deserves to be accepted.
10. In this regard provisions of Section 49 of the Bharatiya
Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (Section 54 of the Indian Evidence Act), is
also relevant, where it has been provided that in criminal proceedings
bad character of accused is irrelevant which reads as under:-
“49. Previous bad character not relevant, except in reply.
In criminal proceedings, the fact that the accused has a bad
character, is irrelevant, unless evidence has been given that he has a
good character, in which case it becomes relevant.
::: Downloaded on - 26/05/2026 12:01:21 :::CIS

5 2026:HHC:19758
High Court of H.P.
Explanation 1. - This section does not apply to cases in which the bad
character of any person is itself a fact in issue.
Explanation 2. - A previous conviction is relevant as evidence of bad
character.”
11. It is also relevant to refer order dated 24.10.2024 passed
by the Apex Court in Cr. Appeal No. 2443 of 2023, arising out of SLP
(Cr.) No. 7162 of 2024, titled as Jitender and others Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh , wherein with respect to pendency of other trial against the
accused, it has been observed that under trial accused is presumed to
be innocent till found guilty.
12. Admittedly, in NDSP Act punishment has been provided
with different quantum of sentence, depending upon the quantity of
contraband, i.e. small, intermediate and commercial quantity. Section
21 of the NDPS Act reads as under:-
“21. Punishment for contravention in relation to manufactured
drugs and preparations.— Whoever, in contravention of any
provision of this Act or any rule or order made or condition of licence
granted thereunder, manufactures, possesses, sells, purchases,
transports, imports inter-State, exports inter-State or uses any
manufactured drug or any preparation containing any manufactured
drug shall be punishable,--
(a) where the contravention involves small quantity, with
rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to one
year, or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees,
or with both;
(b) where the contravention involves quantity, lesser than
commercial quantity but greater than small quantity, with
::: Downloaded on - 26/05/2026 12:01:21 :::CIS

6 2026:HHC:19758
High Court of H.P.
rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten
years and with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees;
(c) where the contravention involves commercial quantity, with
rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less
than ten years but which may extend to twenty years and
shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than one
lakh rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees:
Provided that the court may, for reasons to be recorded in the
judgment, impose a fine exceeding two lakh rupees.”
13. Recovered contraband in present case is heroin. In table
of notification specifying small and commercial quantity, heroin is at Sr.
No. 56, which provides that up to 5 grams the quantity of heroin shall be
small quantity, and more than 250 grams heroin shall be commercial
quantity. Meaning thereby that from 6 grams to 250 grams heroin shall
fall in intermediate quantity.
14. Section 21 (b) provides that for contravention involves
quantity, lesser than commercial quantity but greater than small quantity,
would be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may
extend to ten years and with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees.
For small quantity the punishment is extendable up to one year with fine
extendable to 10,000/- or with both. For contravention involving ₹
commercial quantity punishment provided is rigorous imprisonment for a
term which shall not be less than 10 years but which may extend to 20
years. Meaning thereby sentence in case of commercial quantity is from
::: Downloaded on - 26/05/2026 12:01:21 :::CIS

7 2026:HHC:19758
High Court of H.P.
10 years to 20 years with fine, not less than one lakh rupees extendable
to two lakh rupees.
15. From the aforesaid, it is apparent that for quantity of more
than 6 grams heroin to 250 grams of heroin is intermediate quantity and
for having found in possession of heroin in contravention of provisions of
the Act and Rules framed therein under up to 250 grams, the sentence
shall be extendable up to 10 years, whereas for small quantity i.e. up to
5 grams, the sentence shall be up to one year and thereafter for 6 grams
of heroin the sentence shall be definitely more than one year because
imprisonment up to one year can be awarded for small quantity of
heroin, i.e. up to 5 grams or less than 5 grams.
16. In present case, Trial Court has sentenced the appellant to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years for having found in
possession of 13 grams of heroin. Sentence prescribed for intermediate
quantity of heroin is between one to 10 years. If for lowest intermediate
quantity of 6 grams, it is taken one year and for 250 grams, it shall be 10
years and for awarding mathematical proportionate sentence, an
accused convicted for having been found quantity of heroin up to 25
grams, in normal circumstances would be awarded only one year
whereas maximum sentence prescribed for intermediate quantity i.e. 10
years shall be awarded only for quantity of heroin ranging from 225
grams to 250 grams.
::: Downloaded on - 26/05/2026 12:01:21 :::CIS

8 2026:HHC:19758
High Court of H.P.
17. In our opinion for determining period of substantive
sentence and quantum of fine, mathematical proportionality cannot be
made basis. If such principle is made a norm for determining the
sentence on the basis of quantum of contraband recovered from the
convict, it would be impossible for the Court to exercise its discretion to
determine the period of imprisonment depending upon given facts and
circumstances of a case. For recovery of small/identical quantum of
contraband, to determine the sentence, given facts and circumstances of
each case are to be considered and appreciated independent of
mathematical proportionality.
18. In determining quantum in Criminal Cases for the same
offence, but in different cases, it is not always possible that every time
2+2 would be 4. A slightest different circumstance can cause different
treatment to different accused person while determining the quantum of
sentence. The quantum of sentence has to be determined by the Court
in each case independent of any other case, but by taking into
consideration all relevant factors and given circumstances of the said case.
19. For determining proportionate quantum of contraband, it
cannot be calculated mathematically that up to 25 grams of heroin there
shall be only one year imprisonment and/or the quantum of fine to be
imposed will be one tenth of the maximum fine of one lakh rupees, which
can be imposed. Because for quantum of small quantity with five grams
::: Downloaded on - 26/05/2026 12:01:21 :::CIS

9 2026:HHC:19758
High Court of H.P.
Heroin, sentence up to one year can be imposed and fine up to ten
thousand rupees. If mathematical proportion is applied to intermediate
quantity from 6 grams to 250 grams by making it norm that up to 25
grams of contraband there shall be one year sentence and then for
quantity higher than 25 grams, there shall be one year imprisonment
with fine at the rate of ten thousand rupees for every 25 grams of heroin,
than it will become disproportionate to the quantum of sentence provided
for intermediate quantity of heroin, i.e. from 6 grams to 250 grams as for
contravention involving small quantity of contraband up to 5 grams of
heroin, sentence can be imposed up to one year and fine can be
extended up to ten thousand rupees. In case of making it norm that up to
25 grams, there shall be one year imprisonment and ten thousand
rupees fine, then it would amount to rewriting the provisions of Section
21 of the NDPS Act by judicial verdict because then the punishment
provided for small quantity up to 5 grams of heroin shall extend up to 25
grams of heroin. It will amount to treat unequal in like manner, one
belongs to category of accused for having in possession of small
quantity up to 5 grams, whereas another belongs to category of accused
having found in possession of quantity grater then small quantity of and
some times five times, i.e. 5X5=25 grams of heroin, but the
mathematical proportion would result into awarding of sentence of
imprisonment for both i.e. person with small quantity and person with
::: Downloaded on - 26/05/2026 12:01:21 :::CIS

10 2026:HHC:19758
High Court of H.P.
intermediate quantity on the same footings, which will be against the
intention and purpose of the provision of the Act. Similar impact shall be
there for determining quantum of fine to be imposed upon a convict
found in possession of intermediate quantity of contraband ranging from
6 grams to 250 grams of heroin. For this reason, though we are in
agreement with the findings returned by learned Single Judge in Cr.
Appeal Nos. 540 of 2024, 204 of 2024 and 501 of 2024, referred supra,
but with reservation about the quantum of sentence to be imposed in
those cases.
20. The Apex Court in Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of
Maharashtra, 2012 (2) SCC 648 has reiterated that there is no
straitjacket formula for sentencing an accused on proof of crime. The
Courts have evolved certain principles. Twin objective of sentencing
policy is deterrence and correction, the sentence would meet the ends of
justice depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and the
Courts must keep in mind the gravity of crime, motive for crime, nature
of offence and all other attending circumstances.
21. In view of above observations, prayer of learned counsel
for the appellant for reduction of sentence appears to be logical.
22. In this regard observation made by the Apex Court in
Uggarsain Vs. State of Haryana and others, (2023) 8 SCC 109 , are
relevant, which read as under:-
::: Downloaded on - 26/05/2026 12:01:21 :::CIS

11 2026:HHC:19758
High Court of H.P.
“10. This court has, time and again, stated that the principle of
proportionality should guide the sentencing process. In  Ahmed
Hussein Vali Mohammed Saiyed v. State of Gujarat, (2009) 7 SCC
254,  it was held that the sentence should “deter the criminal from
achieving the avowed object to (sic break the) law,” and the
endeavour should be to impose an “appropriate sentence.” The Court
also held that imposing “meagre sentences” “merely on account of
lapse of time” would be counterproductive. Likewise, in  Jameel v.
State of U. P. (2010) 12 SCC 532 ,  while advocating that sentencing
should be fact dependent exercises, the court also emphasised that:
( Jameel Case, SCC p. 535, para 15)
“15. ….the law should adopt the corrective machinery or
deterrence based on factual matrix. By deft modulation,
sentencing process be stern where it should be, and tempered
with mercy where it warrants to be. The facts and given
circumstances in each case, the nature of the crime, the
manner in which it was planned and committed, the motive for
commission of the crime, the conduct of the accused, the
nature of weapons used and all other attending circumstances
are relevant facts which would enter into the area of
consideration.”
(emphasis supplied)
11. Again, in Guru Basavaraj v. State of Karnataka, (2012) 8 SCC
734 , the Court stressed that: (SCC p 744, para 33)
“33 ….. is the duty of the court to see that appropriate
sentence is imposed regard being had to the commission of
the crime and its impact on the social order”
(emphasis supplied)
and that sentencing includes “adequate punishment” .  In  B.G.
Goswami v. Delhi Administration (1974) 3 SCC 85 , the Court
considered the issue of punishment and observed that punishment is
designed to protect society by deterring potential offenders as well as
prevent the guilty party from repeating the offence; it is also designed
to reform the offender and reclaim him as a law-abiding citizen for the
::: Downloaded on - 26/05/2026 12:01:21 :::CIS

12 2026:HHC:19758
High Court of H.P.
good of the society as a whole. Reformatory, deterrent and punitive
aspects of punishment thus play their due part in judicial thinking
while determining the question of awarding appropriate sentences.
12. In  Shyam Sunder v Puran, (1990) 4 SCC 731 , the accused-
appellant was convicted under Section 304 Part I IPC. The appellate
court reduced the sentence to the term of imprisonment already
undergone, i.e., six months. However, it enhanced the fine. This court
ruled that sentence awarded was inadequate. Proceeding further, it
opined that: (SCC p. 737, para 8)
“8. …...The court in fixing the punishment for any particular
crime should take into consideration the nature of the offence,
the circumstances in which it was committed, the degree of
deliberation shown by the offender. The measure of
punishment should be proportionate to the gravity of the
offence. The sentence imposed by the High Court appears to
be so grossly and entirely inadequate as to involve a failure of
justice. We are of opinion that to meet the ends of justice, the
sentence has to be enhanced”.
(emphasis supplied)
This Court enhanced the sentence to one of rigorous imprisonment for
a period of five years. This court has emphasized, in that sentencing
depends on the facts, and the adequacy is determined by factors such
as “the nature of crime, the manner in which it is committed, the
propensity shown and the brutality reflected” [Ravda Sashikala v State
of A.P. (2017) 4 SCC 546] . Other decisions, like: State of M.P. V.
Bablu, (2014) 9 SCC 281; Hazara Singh V. Raj Kumar, (2013) 9 SCC
516 and State of Punjab v. Saurabh Bakshi (2015) 5 SCC 182 too,
have stressed the significance and importance of imposing
appropriate, “adequate” or “proportionate” punishments.”
23. In Dev Narayan Mandal Vs. State of U.P., 2004 (7) SCC
257 , the Apex Court has held that sentence awarded should be neither
excessively harsh nor ridiculously low, while determining the quantum of
::: Downloaded on - 26/05/2026 12:01:21 :::CIS

13 2026:HHC:19758
High Court of H.P.
sentence, the Court should bear in mind the principle of proportionality
and sentence should be based on the facts of a given case, and gravity
of offence, manner of commission of offence, age and sex of accused
should be taken into account and decision of the Court in awarding
sentence cannot be exercised arbitrarily or whimsically.
24. The quantum of fine, particularly in NDPS cases, has not
be to be determined on the basis of proportionality with regard to
quantum of substantial imprisonment as well as amount of fine.
25. It is also settled law that pendency of Trial in other case
whether FIR or Criminal Case, cannot be taken into consideration for
determining the quantum of sentence to be imposed upon an accused in
a case under reference, keeping in view that there is always
presumption of innocence and an under trial prisoner is not a persons
guilty for commission of offence and thus, unless a person is convicted
in any trial, he cannot be considered to be a convict so as to take into
consideration the quantum of sentence to be imposed upon him. No
doubt, offence under NDPS Act is a heinous crime which is creating
physiological, social and mental health and other health problems, not
only to youth, but also to large chunk of population and is destroying the
Nation by pushing the youth for consuming the drug, leading to distortion
of society and ultimately Nation. However, at the same time, it is also a
matter of fact that in various judgments passed by the High Courts as
::: Downloaded on - 26/05/2026 12:01:21 :::CIS

14 2026:HHC:19758
High Court of H.P.
well as the Apex Court, it has been observed that principles of criminal
jurisprudence are also applicable to the cases pertaining to the NDPS
Act.
26. Appellant has already undergone 1 year 3 months
imprisonment and is serving his sentence in Model Central Jail Kanda,
Shimla, whereas by applying above discussed principle of
proportionality, he would have been convicted with sentence between
one year to two years and even if it is considered that he is a habitual
offender, then there may be imprisonment for more than 2 years.
27. Section 21 (b) of the NDPS Act prescribes imposition of
fine up to one lakh rupees. For maximum intermediate quantity of
heroin, i.e. 250 grams, sentence of fine is ten lakh rupees and by
applying the principle of proportionality, it will be about ten thousand
rupees for recovery of heroin upto 25 grams but at the same time it can
be mathematically proportionate. However, it can be 10 years with ten
lakhs fine for quantum of heroin of 13 or 25 grams. In the given facts
and circumstances and as discussed supra, sentence imposed upon the
appellant deserves to be modified.
28. Accordingly taking into consideration entire facts and
circumstances, sentence imposed upon the appellant is modified and he
is ordered to undergo sentence for a period of one and half and to pay
fine of twenty thousand rupees and in default of payment of fine to
::: Downloaded on - 26/05/2026 12:01:21 :::CIS

15 2026:HHC:19758
High Court of H.P.
further undergo imprisonment for three months for commission of
offence punishable under Section 21(b) of NDPS Act. With the
aforesaid modification to the quantum of sentence, rest of the judgment
passed by the Trial Court is upheld being not contested on merits.
29. The appeal is dismissed, but with modification of quantum
of sentence in aforesaid terms and appellant, if not warranted in any
other case shall be released immediately.
30. Records of the Trial Court alongwith copy of this judgment
be transmitted to the Trial Court forthwith.
(Vivek Singh Thakur),
Judge.
(Ranjan Sharma),
Judge.
th
26 May, 2026
(Keshav)

::: Downloaded on - 26/05/2026 12:01:21 :::CIS