IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

346 Date of decision: 07.03.2026 SUBHASH CHAND ......Appellant VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB .......Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ *****

Present: - Ms. Seema Kumari, Advocate (Legal Aid Counsel)

for the appellant.

Dr. (Ms.) Savi Nagpal, Asst. A.G. Punjab.

*****

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)

1. This is an appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.02.2011 passed by the Judge, Special Court, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI of one month for commission of offence under Section 15 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 in case bearing FIR No. 261 dated 29.09.2005 registered under Section

15 of the NDPS Act, 1985 at Police Station City, Nawanshahr.

2. Briefly stated, as per the case of the prosecution that on 29.09.2005, SI Varinder Kumar of CIF Staff, Nawanshahr along with other police officials was on patrolling duty in a government vehicle. When they were going from Chandigarh Road, Nawanshahr towards Guru Angad Nagar, they saw a person carrying a bag on his head. On seeing the police, he became nervous and tried to turn back. On suspicion, he was apprehended and disclosed his name as Subhash Chand. An independent witness was joined. SI Varinder Kumar informed the accused about his right to get the search conducted before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, but the accused reposed confidence in the police officer. His consent memo was prepared. On checking the bag, poppy husk was recovered. Two samples of 250 grams each were taken and the remaining poppy husk weighed 14 kg 500 grams. The samples and remaining poppy husk were sealed and taken into police possession. The accused could not produce any licence or permit to keep the poppy husk. A ruqa was sent to the police station and FIR was accordingly registered.

3. Upon completion of the investigation, the challan against the appellant was presented before the competent Court. Copies of the same were supplied to the appellant.

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. No one has chosen to appear on behalf of the appellant .The appeal pertains to the year 2011, further wait is not justified. Accordingly, Ms. Seema Kumari, Advocate, Enrollment No. WB/4293/2023, Mobile No. 9476027824 is appointed as Legal Aid Counsel to assist this Court on behalf of the appellant.

6. At the outset, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the appellant submits that she doesn’t want to challenge the judgment on merits and confines her prayer and arguments only to the quantum of sentence awarded. She contends that appellant’s sentence was suspended vide order dated 12.07.2011. She contends that the FIR in the present case had been registered in the year 2005 and already a period of more than 20 years has lapsed since then. The appellant has faced agony of protracted criminal proceedings for more than 20 years and has already undergone 09 months and 13 days of actual sentence. It is further contended that there is nothing on record to suggest that appellant has misused the concession of suspension of sentence that was awarded to him.

7. On the other hand, the learned State counsel, while opposing the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant, has argued that the prosecution has successfully established the guilt of the appellant through cogent, reliable, and convincing evidence brought on record during trial. It is further contended that the offence committed by the appellant 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 a