1. The Appellant, having been convicted and sentenced as captioned above, has come up before this Court under Section 415 BNSS (374(II) CrPC), and also seeks suspension of his sentence under Section 430 BNSS, 2023 (389 CrPC).

2. On March 13, 2019, the investigator received secret information that the appellant Satyawan deals in the illegal cultivation of opium plants on the plot of his sister in the district of Panipat. Upon finding the information credible, the investigator reached the spot and found a person sitting in front of a room constructed on the said plot. The police apprehended the person in question, who identified himself as Satyawan. They also noticed a large number of poppy plants growing in that plot. After that, the investigator made a phone call to the Forest Officer, and based on his personal experience, he identified the plants to be those of opium poppy. After counting the number of plants that were planted, 152 were found, and the plants were taken into possession. After the investigation was completed, the prosecution commenced.

3. By impugned judgment dated January 8, 2026, the Ld. trial Court held the appellant guilty of possessing 152 plants of opium weighing 11.560 kilograms.

4. In paragraph number 23 of the impugned judgment the trial Court referred to the sub-clauses vii(a) and xxii(a) of Sections 2 of NDPS Act and came to the conclusion that the quantity more than 2.5 kg of opium shall fall in the commercial quantity and considering the weight of the plants to be 11.560 kg, the trial Judge opined that it fell into commercial quantity.

5. In paragraph 39 of the impugned judgment, the trial Court held that the appellant was found in possession of 11.560 kg of opium poppy plants (152 in number) and held him guilty of the offense punishable under section 18(b) of the NDPS Act.

6. After that, by order on quantum of sentence passed on Jan 12, 2026, the trial Court sentenced the appellant Satyawan under §18(b) of the NDPS Act and awarded him rigorous imprisonment for a period of twenty years, imposed a fine of ₹2 lakhs, and, in the event of default of payment of fine, further simple imprisonment for two years.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant-convict submits that there is patent illegality in the judgment of conviction and sentence because, in the case of a violation involving the poppy plants, the maximum sentence which could have been imposed cannot be what is prescribed for commercial quantities. Learned Counsel further submits that given this, the factum of the entire trial having been conducted under Section 18(b) of the NDPS Act and the consequent conviction and sentence under Section 18(b), where the minimum sentence that the Courts can impose is of mandatory minimum for ten years and which may extend to 20 years, and the sentence which was awarded in the present case to the Appellant was of 20 years, is absolutely illegal and contrary to the law.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that although they did not challenge the charges, at the time of pronouncing the judgment, it was for the trial Court to have concluded as to what offense would be made out.

9. Ld. counsel for the convict submits that in the present case, the ends of justice would suffice if the judgment of conviction and order of sentence are quashed and set aside, and the matter is remanded back to the trial Court for re-hearing, keeping in view that the conviction could not have been passed under Section 18(b) of the NDP