Sardool Singh vs State Of Haryana

Court
Punjab and Haryana High Court


CRA-S-953-SB-2005 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
122
CRA-S-953-SB-2005 (O&M)
Date of decision : 12.11.2026
SARDOOL SINGH
..... APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA
..... RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH
Present : Mr. Kanisth Ganeriwala, Advocate
for the appellant.
Ms. Deepali Verma, Asstt. A.G. Haryana.
*
, .
SURYA PARTAP SINGH J
The present appeal has been filed by the appellant against the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.05.2005, passed by the
Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa , hereinafter being referred
to as ‘trial Court’ only.
2. Briefly stating the facts emerging from record are that one FIR,
i.e. FIR No.165 dated 19.07.2003, was registered at the instance of ‘ASI
Kamal Singh’. The abovesaid FIR was lodged for the commission of offence
punishable under Sections 15/16 of ‘Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘NDPS Act’, Police Station
Kalanwali, Sirsa. In the wake of abovementioned FIR, the investigation was
taken up by the police, and as an outcome of abovesaid investigation, the
appellant was sent to face trial before the learned trial Court.
VIPIN KUMAR
2026.11.13 12:13
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document


CRA-S-953-SB-2005 (O&M) 2
3. The appellant participated in the abovementioned trial. By virtue
of judgment dated 16.05.2005, hereinafter being referred to as ‘impugned
judgment’, the abovesaid trial culminated into conviction of the appellant.
Thus, vide order dated 16.05.2005, on the point of quantum of sentence,
hereinafter being referred to as ‘impugned order’, following sentences were
awarded to the appellant:-
Offence under
Section Sentence
Rigorous imprisonment for a period of eight years and
to pay a fine of Rs.80,000/-. In default thereof to
undergo further imprisonment for a period of one and a
half year.
15 of NDPS Act
4. In nut-shell, the facts emerging from record are that the FIR of
this case came into being at the instance of ‘ASI Kamal Singh’, who reported
that on 19.07.2003 when he was leading a team of police officials, deputed
for patrolling duty, at the bridge of Bhakhra Main Branch Canal at
Kalanwali-Kewal road in the area of village Takhatmal, a person was spotted,
who was carrying a jute bag on his head and was approaching them. It was
further reported by the above-named police officer that the moment, he
noticed the presence of the police party on his way ahead, he got nervous and
started walking briskly. The above-named police officer further reported that
in view of above-mentioned suspicious conduct, when enquiry was made
from him, he disclosed his name as ‘Sardool Singh’. According to above-
named police officer search of the above-named person was conducted and
VIPIN KUMAR
2026.11.13 12:13
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document


CRA-S-953-SB-2005 (O&M) 3
during search 40 kgs. 200 gms. of poppy-straw was recovered from his
possession.
5. It was a case of the prosecution that pursuant to 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 reasonable
VIPIN KUMAR
2026.11.13 12:13
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document


CRA-S-953-SB-2005 (O&M) 4
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
within the ambit of ‘non-commercial quantity’ and that in the present case,
VIPIN KUMAR
2026.11.13 12:13
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document


CRA-S-953-SB-2005 (O&M) 5
the appellant ‘Sardool Singh’ has already undergone imprisonment for a
period of seven months and one day. 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.
Per contra
12. , 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 eight 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 15 of NDPS Act. Accordingly, the abovementioned finding is
hereby affirmed and qua the judgment of conviction instant appeal is hereby
VIPIN KUMAR
2026.11.13 12:13
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document


CRA-S-953-SB-2005 (O&M) 6
dismissed.
15. As far as the order on quantum of sentence is concerned, in view
of the fact that the appellant ‘Sardool Singh’ has already undergone
imprisonment for a period of seven months and one day, against the awarded
sentence of eight 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;
(c) that the appellant is facing the agony of protracted trial for
the last more than 23 years;
(d) that against the awarded sentence of eight years, the
appellant ‘Sardool Singh’ has already undergone
imprisonment for a period of seven months and one day;
(e) that it was the first offence committed by the appellant;
(f) that in the last more than 23 years, the appellant has not been
prosecuted for any other offence; and
(g) that now the age of the appellant ‘Sardool Singh’ is more
than 65-year.
17. In view of abovementioned observations, the sentence awarded
VIPIN KUMAR
2026.11.13 12:13
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document


CRA-S-953-SB-2005 (O&M) 7
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.
20. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed
of, accordingly.
(SURYA PARTAP SINGH)
JUDGE
12.11.2026
vipin
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
VIPIN KUMAR
2026.11.13 12:13
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document