IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

233 Date of decision: 11.02.2026 NARANG SINGH ......Petitioner VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB .......Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ *****

Present: - Mr. Vicky Sharma, Advocate for Mr. K.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Mohit Kapoor, Senior DAG, Punjab.

*****

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)

1. This is an appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.09.2015 passed by the Judge, Special Court, Sangrur whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of two years and to pay fine of Rs. 15,000/-(and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI of three months) for commission of offence under Section 15 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 in case bearing FIR No. 83 dated 27.06.2012 registered under Section 15 of the NDPS Act, 1985 at Police Station Dirba, District Sangrur.

2. Briefly summarized, facts of the present case are that on 28.06.2012, police party headed by ASI Gurmeet Singh was proceeding from Village Dirba to Village Karial when Bhola Singh joined them on the way. At about

6:45 A.M., upon reaching the canal bridge in the area of Village Dirba, the appellant was found handling a gunny bag placed under trees and, on seeing the police party, he attempted to flee but was apprehended. Upon checking, 35 kilograms of poppy husk was recovered from the gunny bag along with a plastic container. Two samples of 250 grams each were drawn, and the sample parcels as well as the bulk were sealed with seal bearing impression ‘GS’. Ruqa was sent to the police station on the basis of which FIR was registered. Thereafter, the case property was produced before the SHO, who affixed his seal bearing impression ‘KK’, and the same was deposited in the Malkhana. One sample parcel was sent to the Chemical Examiner, Kharar for analysis. After receipt of the report and completion of investigation, challan was presented before the Court.

3. Upon receipt of the report of the Chemical Examiner and consequent completion of the investigation, the challan against the appellant was presented before the competent Court. Copies of the same were supplied to the appellant as per laws.

4. After the parties led their respective evidence and upon conclusion of the trial, the appellant was held guilty and sentenced accordingly by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereof, the present appeal has been instituted.

5. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits that he doesn’t want to challenge the judgment on merits and confines his prayer and arguments only to the quantum of sentence awarded. He contends that appellant’s sentence was suspended vide order dated 4.12.2015. He contends that the appellant is a poor person and the only bread earner of his family. The FIR in the present case had been registered in the year 2012 and already a period of 13 years has lapsed since then. The appellant has faced agony of protracted criminal proceedings for more than 13 years and has already undergone 04 months and 21 days of actual sentence. It is further contended that appellant is a first time offender and has no other criminal antecedents and there is nothing on record to suggest that appellant has misused the concession of suspension of sentence that was awarded to him.

6. On the other hand, the learned State counsel, while opposing the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, has argued that the prosecution has successfully established the guilt of the petitioner through cogent, reliable, and convincing evidence brought on record during trial. It is further contended that the offence committed by the petitioner is of a serious nature and, therefore, calls for imposition of a stringent sentence. The learned State counsel submits that leniency in such cases would send a wrong signal to society and undermine the administration of criminal justice. Hence, it is imperative that adequate and deterrent punishment be imposed to ensur