Heera Lal vs State Of Haryana

CRA-S-1725-SB-2005 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
124 CRA-S-1725-SB-2005 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 02.11 .2026
Heera Lal
......Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana
...... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH
Present : Mr. Vicky Sharma, Advocate for
Mr. K.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate for the appellant.
Ms. Deepali Verma, AAG, Haryana.
SURYA PARTAP SINGH , J . (Oral) :
The present appeal has been filed by the appellant against the
judgment of conviction dated 29.08.2005 and order of sentence dated
30.08.2005, passed by the Court of learned Special Judge, Panipat (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.905 dated 26.12.2003, was lodged at the instance of ‘Inspector Jagbir
Singh ’. The abovesaid FIR was lodged for the commission of offence
punishable under Section 18 of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act,
1985 hereinafter being referred to as ‘NDPS’ only, Police Station City Panipat.
In the wake of abovementioned FIR, the investigation was taken up by the
MANOJ KUMAR
2026.11.03 12:59
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CRA-S-1725-SB-2005 (O&M) 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 29.08.2005, hereinafter being referred to as ‘impugned
judgment’, the abovesaid trial culminated into conviction of the appellant.
Thus, vide order dated 30.08.2005, on the point of quantum of sentence,
hereinafter being referred to as ‘impugned order’, following sentence was
awarded to the appellant:-
Offence under
Sentence
Section
Rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and
to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-. In default thereof to further
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six
months.
18 of NDPS Act
4. In nut-shell, the facts emerging from record are that the FIR of this
case came when ‘Inspector Jagbir Singh’, reported that on 26.12.2002, when
he was deputed for patrolling and checking of crime duty near Bishan Sarup
colony, Panipat, a person alighted from a bus, who after finding the presence
of police party tried to take turn back. According to above-named police
officer on the basis of suspicion he was stopped and search of his person was
conducted. The above named police officer further reported that on search of
his person 2 Kg. opium, wrapped in wax paper, was recovered, which was
hidden under a bandage on the appellant’s right leg. As per above named
police officer on inquiry he disclosed his name as ‘Heera Lal’ (the appellant
MANOJ KUMAR
2026.11.03 12:59
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CRA-S-1725-SB-2005 (O&M) 3
herein).
5. It was a case of the prosecution that on the basis of
abovementioned statement, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the
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 occurrence, recorded the statement of witnesses under
Section 161 CrPC, and completed other formalities of investigation.
Thereafter, the final report under Section 173 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 its judicial mind to the facts of the case,
and that merely, on the basis of conjectures and surmises, the finding of
conviction of appellant for the commission of offence under Section 18 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 reasonable
doubts. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the evidence adduced
MANOJ KUMAR
2026.11.03 12:59
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CRA-S-1725-SB-2005 (O&M) 4
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 has also
argued that in the present case, the appellant has already undergone
imprisonment for a period of nine months and seven days. According to
learned counsel for the appellant, in view of above-discussed factors, and the
MANOJ KUMAR
2026.11.03 12:59
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CRA-S-1725-SB-2005 (O&M) 5
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 of the commission of offence punishable
under Section 18 of NDPS Act. According to learned counsel for the
respondent/State, the sentence awarded to the appellant, i.e. imprisonment for
a period of seven 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 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 18 of NDPS Act. Accordingly, the abovementioned finding is
hereby affirmed and qua the judgment of conviction instant appeal is hereby
dismissed.
MANOJ KUMAR
2026.11.03 12:59
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CRA-S-1725-SB-2005 (O&M) 6
15. As far as the order on quantum of sentence is concerned, in view
of the fact that the appellant has already undergone imprisonment for a period
of nine months and seven days, against the awarded sentence of seven 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 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 seven years, the
appellant has already undergone imprisonment for a period of
nine months and seven days;
(d) that in the last more than 23 years, the appellant has not been
prosecuted for any offence; and
(e) that minimum sentence for the offence has not been
prescribed.
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
MANOJ KUMAR
2026.11.03 12:59
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CRA-S-1725-SB-2005 (O&M) 7
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.
20. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of,
accordingly.
(SURYA PARTAP SINGH)
JUDGE
02.11.2026
Manoj Bhutani
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
MANOJ KUMAR
2026.11.03 12:59
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document