Balwinder Kumar vs State Of Punjab on 10 April, 2026

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Balwinder Kumar vs State Of Punjab on 10 April, 2026

                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                                          AT CHANDIGARH

           365-1
                                                              CRA-S-1725-SB-2011 (O&M)
                                                              Date of decision: 10.04.2026

           Balwinder Kumar                                                       ...Appellant
                                                 VERSUS
           State of Punjab                                                       ...Respondent

           365-2                                              CRA-S-2083-SB-2012 (O&M)
                                                              Date of decision: 10.04.2026

           Babu Singh                                                            ......Appellant
                                                 VERSUS
           State of Punjab                                                   .......Respondent

           CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ

           Present: -          Mr. Prateek Garg, Advocate(PH-3877-2024, Mob No.86073-02727)
                               Legal Aid Counsel for the appellants.

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

           VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)

Both these appeals are being decided by this order as they arise

out of the same occurrence and have been preferred separately by the

different accused-convicts.

2. Reference to the facts however is being made from CRA-S-

1725-2011 titled as “Balwinder Kumar Vs. State of Punjab“.

3. The appeal(s) have been preferred against the judgment of

conviction and order of sentence dated 12.03.2011 passed by the Judge,

Special Court, Sri Muktsar Sahib, in Sessions case No.349 dated 20.10.2005

(RT No. 352 of 23.02.2007) arising out of FIR bearing No.202 dated

01.06.2005, registered under Sections 15 of the Narcotics & Psychotropic

MANGAL SINGH
2026.05.01 19:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
2
365-1 CRA-S-1725-SB-2011 (O&M)
365-2 CRA_S-2083-SB-2012 (O&M)

Substances Act, 1985 at Police Station Lambi, whereby both the appellants

had been convicted for commission of offenses under Section 15 of the

NDPS Act and sentenced as under :

Offence Imprisonment Fine In default of payment
of fine
Section 15 3 years 6 months Rs.30,000/- 9 months RI
NDPS Act RI (each)

4. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 01.06.2005,

a police party headed by SI Gurbachan Singh, while on patrol duty, received

secret information that Babu Singh and Balwinder Kumar were selling

poppy husk near a kinnow orchard in Village Luhara. Acting upon the said

information, the police party proceeded to the indicated spot and, after

associating an independent witness, reached near the orchard. At the spot,

two persons were found standing with a bicycle carrying a gunny bag on its

carrier, from which poppy husk was visible. Both persons were apprehended

and identified as Babu Singh and Balwinder Kumar. After informing them

of their right of search and upon their consent, the police conducted a search

of the bag, which led to the recovery of 30 kilograms of poppy husk, out of

which 250 grams was separated as a sample and the remaining quantity was

sealed. During personal search, cash amounts of Rs.265/- from Babu Singh

and Rs.65/- from Balwinder Kumar were also recovered. Thereafter, both

the accused were arrested in the present case.

5. Copies of the challan and other relevant documents were

supplied to the accused in compliance with law. Upon consideration of the

material on record, a prima facie case for the offence punishable under

Section 15 of the NDPS Act was found to be made out and charges were

MANGAL SINGH
2026.05.01 19:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
3
365-1 CRA-S-1725-SB-2011 (O&M)
365-2 CRA_S-2083-SB-2012 (O&M)

accordingly framed against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to

the said charges and claimed trial.

6. On completion of the procedural compliances, parties led their

respective evidence. The prosecution examined PW1 HC Lakhwinder Singh

(recovery witness), PW2 HC Harpinder Singh, PW3 HC Nazar Singh

(another recovery witness), PW4 HC Surjit Singh (MHC of the Police

Station) and PW5 Gorjant Singh (Retired Inspector SHO) and thereafter

closed its evidence.

7. The entire evidence was put to the petitioner and his statement

under Section 313 Cr. P.C. was recorded. He denied the same but led no

evidence in defence.

8. On consideration of the evidence and hearing the arguments,

the Judge, Special Court, Sri Muktsar Sahib convicted the appellants vide

judgment dated 12.03.2011 and sentenced them as mentioned above. Hence,

the present appeal.

9. Since, there was no representation on the behalf of the

appellant(s) and the position remains unchanged today as well. Accordingly,

Mr. Prateek Garg, Advocate, who is present in the Court is appointed as a

Legal Aid Counsel to assist this Court on behalf of the appellant(s)

in both the cases. After going through the paper-books, he assails the

impugned judgment and order of conviction on the ground that the learned

Courts have failed to properly appreciate both the oral as well as

documentary evidence brought on record. It is contended that material

aspects of the prosecution case have been overlooked and the findings

recorded are based on surmises and conjectures rather than on a sound

MANGAL SINGH
2026.05.01 19:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
4
365-1 CRA-S-1725-SB-2011 (O&M)
365-2 CRA_S-2083-SB-2012 (O&M)

appreciation of evidence. It is further submitted that the prosecution has

miserably failed to establish its case against the appellant beyond reasonable

doubt. As per the prosecution version itself, the case originates from a secret

information received by the Investigating Officer. However, it is contended

that the said information was not reduced into writing nor was it transmitted

in accordance with the mandatory provisions of law.

10. Learned counsel further argues that although the prosecution

claims to have associated an independent witness, namely Jagdish Kumar, at

the time of recovery, the said witness has not been examined during trial.

The non-examination of such a material witness, without any plausible

explanation, creates a serious dent in the prosecution case. It is contended

that the entire case rests solely on the testimonies of official witnesses, i.e.,

police officials, who are inherently interested in the success of the case and

therefore, their testimonies ought to have been scrutinized with greater

caution. It is also contended that mandatory procedural safeguards have not

been complied with. In particular, it is submitted that Form No. 29 was not

filled at the spot and the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act were not

adhered to, which vitiates the search and recovery. It is argued that the Trial

Court has failed to consider these material lapses in their proper perspective.

11. Lastly, it is contended that there has been an unexplained delay

in sending the samples to the office of the Chemical Examiner, thereby

raising doubts regarding the sanctity and integrity of the sample allegedly

recovered. In view of the aforesaid submissions, it is argued that the

appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case and that the

prosecution version suffers from inherent contradictions and procedural

MANGAL SINGH
2026.05.01 19:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
5
365-1 CRA-S-1725-SB-2011 (O&M)
365-2 CRA_S-2083-SB-2012 (O&M)

irregularities and thus, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of

sentence be set aside and the appellant be acquitted of the charges.

12. On the other hand, the learned State counsel, while opposing the

submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants, has argued that the

appellants have been rightly convicted after due appreciation of the evidence

on record. It is contended that the findings recorded by the learned Trial

Court are based on cogent and reliable evidence and do not suffer from any

illegality, perversity or infirmity warranting interference. It is further

submitted that the prosecution has been able to establish the recovery of

contraband from the conscious possession of the appellant through

consistent testimonies of official witnesses. The mere fact that the witnesses

are police officials does not render their evidence unreliable, particularly

when their testimonies are found to be credible and have withstood the test

of cross-examination. It is well settled that conviction can be sustained on

the basis of official witnesses alone, in the absence of any material to

suggest false implication.

13. Learned State Counsel further argues that the non-examination

of the independent witness, Jagdish Kumar, is not fatal to the prosecution

case. It is submitted that it is not uncommon for independent witnesses to

abstain from appearing during trial and the prosecution case cannot be

discarded solely on that ground when the remaining evidence is otherwise

trustworthy and sufficient to establish guilt.

14. It is also contended that there has been substantial compliance

with the statutory provisions under the NDPS Act. The appellant was duly

apprised of his rights and the search and seizure were conducted with their

MANGAL SINGH
2026.05.01 19:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
6
365-1 CRA-S-1725-SB-2011 (O&M)
365-2 CRA_S-2083-SB-2012 (O&M)

consent and in accordance with law. Any minor procedural irregularity, if at

all, does not go to the root of the matter so as to vitiate the entire trial.

15. Learned State Counsel further submits that the delay in sending

the sample to the Chemical Examiner does not affect the integrity of the

sample, particularly when the seals were found intact and tallied at all

stages. The chemical analysis report conclusively establishes that the

substance recovered was contraband, thereby corroborating the prosecution

case. Lastly, it is contended that the defence plea of false implication is bald

and unsupported by any cogent material. No motive has been attributed to

the police officials to falsely implicate the appellant. The prosecution has

proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the learned Trial Court has

rightly returned a finding of conviction. In view of the aforesaid, it is prayed

that the present appeal/revision petition be dismissed and the judgment of

conviction and order of sentence be upheld.

16. I have heard learned counsel representing the parties and have

gone through the case record.

17. At the outset it is apposite to refer to the findings recorded by

the trial court, relevant extract whereof are as under:

“5. I have heard the learned Addl. PP for the State, Ld.

defence counsel and have also gone through the record on the

file carefully and the following point in this case is to be

determined:

“Whether on 01.06.2005 at 4.00 p.m., in the area of

village, Luhara, accused were found in possession of 30

kilograms of poppy husk without any permit of license

MANGAL SINGH
2026.05.01 19:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
7
365-1 CRA-S-1725-SB-2011 (O&M)
365-2 CRA_S-2083-SB-2012 (O&M)

and whether they can be convicted?”

xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

11. The first arguments advanced by the ld. counsel for the

accused is that as per prosecution version, the I.O. received the

secret information against the accused, but the same was not

reduced into writing which is fatal to the prosecution case. I

have heard this contention of the Id. counsel for the accused,

but do not find any merits in the same as I may take support of

case law titled as Satish Kumar alias Rishi Vs. State of

Haryana 2009(3)RCR, (P&H), page 266, wherein it has been

held:

“C. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act,

Section 42-Investigating Officer while on patrol duty

received secret information regarding possession of

contraband by accused. I.O. did not reduce the

information in writing but effected recovery on the basis

of said secret information. It is no violation of section 42-

Held:

(1) Investigating officer is obligated to send such

information to his immediate official superior only

if the same has been taken down in writing- In the

instant case secret information was not reduced to

writing. That being so investigating Officer could

not be expected to send the same to his immediate

official superiors.

MANGAL SINGH
2026.05.01 19:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
8

           365-1                           CRA-S-1725-SB-2011 (O&M)
           365-2                           CRA_S-2083-SB-2012 (O&M)

(2) Non-compliance of Section 42 does not ipso facto

affect the conviction of the appellant unless it is

shown that same has caused prejudice to him and

resulted in failure of justice”.

Further more, as per section 42 of the N.D.P.S.

Act, it is obligation on the I.O. to send the

information to his immediate superior official only

if the same has been taken down in writing. In this

case the case of the prosecution is not that the

secret information was reduced into writing. So,

merely fact secret information was not sent in

writing to his superior by the I.O. in writing has

not caused any prejudice to the accused. Further,

HC Lakhwinder Singh, who was accompanying SI

Gurbachan Singh, I.O. of the case has specifically

deposed that after receiving the secret information,

information regarding the same was given to the

higher police officials by way telephonic message.

So, the contention raised by the Id. counsel for the

accused is having no force and the same is hereby

repelled.

12. Further, it was argued by the learned counsel for the

accused that independent witness Jagdish Kumar was joined in

the police party as per prosecution version, but he has not been

examined by the prosecution during the trial, which castes

MANGAL SINGH
2026.05.01 19:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
9
365-1 CRA-S-1725-SB-2011 (O&M)
365-2 CRA_S-2083-SB-2012 (O&M)

doubt upon the prosecution case. I have heard this argument of

the learned counsel for the accused, but do not find any weight

in this arguments because statements of the officials witness

cannot be discarded merely on the ground of colour of their

office. The only analogy, which is to be kept in mind while

relying upon the testimonies of the official witnesses is that

there testimonies are to be scrutinized with more care and

caution. Keeping in view this analogy in mind, I have

scrutinized the testimonies of the official witnesses with more

care and cautiously, which were subjected to lengthy cross-

examination, but they could not be budged on any material

aspect of the case of the prosecution. There is nothing on

record to disbelieve the police officials and that they are

truthful and credible. There is no reason for false implication.

Further, I may take support of the case law titled as Mohan

Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2007(4) RCR (Criminal) (P&H),

page 705, wherein, it has been held:

“C. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,

Section 15 – Evidentiary value of official witness –

Recovery of 30 bags of poppy husks straw – Independent

witness associated, but not examined – Not fatal to

prosecution – There is no principle of law that without

corroboration by independent witness, testimony of the

official witness cannot be relied upon -In the instant

recovery effected in presence of DSP a Gazetted officer-

MANGAL SINGH
2026.05.01 19:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
10

           365-1                           CRA-S-1725-SB-2011 (O&M)
           365-2                           CRA_S-2083-SB-2012 (O&M)

no evidence that official witnesses were inimical towards

the accused.

Further held:

That testimony Of official witnesses should be treated in the

same manner as the testimony of any of the witness. The

presumption that a person acts honestly applies as much in

favour of a police personnel as of other persons and it is not a

proper judicial approach to distrust and suspect them without

good grounds.”

xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

It is settled proposition of law that testimonies of the official

witnesses are as good as of independent witnesses. Further

more, the accused has not dared to summon the said

independent witness Jagdish Kumar in his defense in order to

falsify the case of the prosecution. On the other hand, the

prosecution witnesses have remained unrebutted during their

cross-examinations. So, the contention raised by the learned

counsel for the accused is having no force and the same is

hereby repelled.

13. Further, it was argued that seal was not handed over to

an independent witness after use, which is also fatal to the

prosecution case. I have heard this contention of the learned

counsel for the accused, but I do not find any force in the same

as it was held in case law titled as Parshan Singh son of

Joginder Singh, R/o Village, Shahabad Vs. The State of

MANGAL SINGH
2026.05.01 19:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
11
365-1 CRA-S-1725-SB-2011 (O&M)
365-2 CRA_S-2083-SB-2012 (O&M)

Haryana 2009(5) RCR(Criminal) (PSH), page 810, wherein, it

has been held:

“D. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances act,

1985, Section 15-Search and seizure-Seal after use

handed over to ASI and not to an independent witness-

Court has to take into consideration as to whether any

prejudice caused to the accused on account of non-

handing over the seal to an independent witness- Cogent,

convincing, reliable and trustworthy evidence available

on record – Non-entrustment of seal to an independent

witness is of no consequence”.

In this case, the accused have failed to prove any prejudice has

been caused to them on account of non-handing over the seal to

the independent witness. Further, more as per Chemical

Examiner’s report, Ex.PW3/G, seals on the sample were intact

and tallied with the specimen seal chit. So, contention raised by

the learned counsel for the accused is having no force and the

same is hereby repelled.

14. The next contention raised by ld. counsel for the accused

was that CFL form was not filled up at the spot. I have heard

this contention, but I do not find any merits in the same because

PWI HC Lakhwinder Singh, recovery witness in his statement

has specifically deposed that CFL form was filled up at the

spot. Similarly, HC Nazar Singh another recovery witness has

also deposed that CFL form was filled up at the spot. Further, I

MANGAL SINGH
2026.05.01 19:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
12
365-1 CRA-S-1725-SB-2011 (O&M)
365-2 CRA_S-2083-SB-2012 (O&M)

may take support of case law titled as Wazir Singh Vs. State of

Haryana 2010(1) RCR (Criminal) (P&H) , page 480, wherein,

it has been held:

“B. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,

1985, Section 20(b) (i)(c)– recovery of contraband -CESL

form not filled on spot-Held, there is no rule of evidence

or procedural rule under Criminal Procedure code or

N.D.P.S. Act that every document must be prepared at the

spot of recovery”. Further, more as per report of the

Chemical Examiner Ex.PW3/G, the seals of the sample

were intact on arrival and agreed with the specimen seals.

So, the possibility of tampering with is ruled out. So, in

view of my above discussion and in the light of above

citation of law, I do not find any force in the contention

raised by the learned counsel for the accused and the

same is hereby repelled.

15. Further, it was argued by the learned counsel for the

accused that there are contradictions between the statements of

the PWs. I have heard this contention of the learned counsel for

the accused, but do not find any no force in this because in the

present case, the recovery was made in the year, 2005 and the

PWs of the case have deposed in the years, 2009 and 2010. It is

settled proposition of law that with the passage of time, a true

witness is not expected to narrate like a parrot as a true witness

is not expected to be a tutored witness and minor discrepancies

MANGAL SINGH
2026.05.01 19:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
13
365-1 CRA-S-1725-SB-2011 (O&M)
365-2 CRA_S-2083-SB-2012 (O&M)

and contradictions are bound to occur with the passage of time.

In this case, the accused has failed to point out any major

discrepancy or contradiction, which has caused any dent to the

prosecution case, rather all the witnesses remained unrebutted

during their cross- examinations and nothing fruitful came out

to support the accused or to cause any dent to the case of the

prosecution. So, in view of my above discussion, the contention

raised by the learned counsel for the accused has no force and

the same is hereby repelled.

16. On the other hand, the prosecution has examined HC

Lakhwinder Singh as PW1, who has proved consent memos Ex.

P1 and Ex. P2, recovery memo Ex. PW3, personal search

memo Ex. P4 memo Ex. PS, grounds of arrest memo Ex. P6, Ex.

P7 and representative sample parcel Ex.MO1.

17. The prosecution has Inspector Gurjant Singh as also

examined PW5, who has entrustment memo Ex. PW3/D,

application Ex. PW4/C, inventory report Ex. PW4/B, Court

orders Ex. PW4/G, detailed report Ex. PW4/H, his endorsement

Ex. PW5/A over the detailed report, report of the Chemical

Examiner Ex. PW3/G, death certificate Ex. PA of SI Gurbachan

singh, consent memos Ex.P1 and Ex. P2, recovery memo Ex.

P3, ruqa Ex. PW3/B, memos of grounds of arrest Ex. P6 and

Ex. P7, personal search memos Ex. P4 and Ex.P5, rough site

plan Ex. PW3/F, specimen seal chit Ex.PW3/A and entrustment

memo Ex. PW3/D.

MANGAL SINGH
2026.05.01 19:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
14
365-1 CRA-S-1725-SB-2011 (O&M)
365-2 CRA_S-2083-SB-2012 (O&M)

18. The prosecution has also examined HC Nazar Singh as

PW3, who has proved the consent memo Ex. P1, another

consent memo Ex. P2, recovery Memo Ex. P3, ruqa Ex. PW3/B,

formal FIR Ex. PW3/C, personal search memo Ex. P4, Ex. P5,

grounds of arrest memo Ex. P6, Ex. P7, recovery memo Ex.

PW3/D, representative sample as Ex. M01, site plan Ex. PW3/E

and report of the Chemical Examiner Ex. PW3/G.

19. The prosecution has also examined HC Surjit Singh as

PW3 and C. Harpinder Singh as PW3, who tendered into

evidence their affidavits Ex. PW4/A and Ex. P8, respectively

and deposed about the fact of deposit of the case

property/sample.

20. So, after considering the entire evidence placed on the

record, law cited above, I am of the view that the prosecution

has established beyond reasonable doubt that the accused were

found in possession of 30 kilograms of poppy husk on

01.06.2005 at 4.00 p.m., in the area of village, Luhara without

any permit or license and thereby committed an offence

punishable under section 15 of the N.D.P.S. Act. Therefore, the

presumption under sections 54 and 35 of the said Act is raised

against them as the prosecution has proved unauthorized

conscious possession of 30 kilograms of poppy husk from the

accused and fully proved the recovery memo and report of the

Chemical Examiner also remains unrebutted. On the other

hand, the accused have not become able to cause any dent in

MANGAL SINGH
2026.05.01 19:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
15
365-1 CRA-S-1725-SB-2011 (O&M)
365-2 CRA_S-2083-SB-2012 (O&M)

the prosecution case, as discussed above. Further more, even

the defence taken by the accused in their statements recorded

under section 313 Cr.P.C., they have pleaded that they have

been falsely implicated in the present case, but the reasons of

their false implication have not been explained by them and

have also failed to prove or allege that why the police officials

were inimical towards them. So, the offence under section 15 of

the N.D.P.S. Act is complete and the conviction must follow on

the strength of statutory presumption. The accused have failed

to rebut the presumption and they are held guilty of committing

the offence under section 15 of the N.D.P.S. Act.”

18. A perusal of the above evidently shows that the Special court

has given its thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions advanced on

behalf of the parties and has perused the entire material available on record.

The Court has specifically adverted to the objections raised by the appellant

herein with regard to non-compliance of statutory provisions, including the

non-reduction of secret information into writing, non-examination of the

independent witness, non-handing over of the seal and delay or

discrepancies in procedure. Each of these submissions has been dealt with in

detail by placing reliance upon binding precedents and the Court has

recorded cogent reasons as to why such objections do not vitiate the

prosecution case in the absence of demonstrated prejudice to the accused.

The reasoning reflects a correct appreciation of law that procedural lapses,

unless shown to have caused miscarriage of justice, cannot be elevated to the

level of fatal defects.

MANGAL SINGH
2026.05.01 19:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
16

           365-1                           CRA-S-1725-SB-2011 (O&M)
           365-2                           CRA_S-2083-SB-2012 (O&M)

19. It is further evident that the Court has scrutinized the

testimonies of the official witnesses and has found them to be consistent,

reliable and worthy of credence. The Court has rightly observed that there

exists no legal bar in relying upon the testimony of official witnesses merely

on account of their official status, particularly when their evidence remains

unshaken during cross-examination and is corroborated by documentary

material, including recovery memos and the report of the Chemical

Examiner. The Court has also taken into account the statutory presumptions

arising under Sections 35 and 54 of the NDPS Act upon proof of conscious

possession and has correctly shifted the onus upon the accused to rebut the

same. The appellant, however, has failed to discharge this burden, either by

leading cogent evidence or by eliciting material contradictions in the

prosecution case. The plea of false implication has been found to be bald and

unsupported by any plausible explanation or evidence.

20. In view of the above I am of the opinion that the impugned

findings demonstrate that the Court has arrived at a well-reasoned

conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.

No perversity, illegality or material irregularity is discernible in the approach

or findings so recorded, which would warrant interference in revisional

jurisdiction. Accordingly, the present appeals are dismissed.

21. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant contends that his

prayer only to the sentencing part be considered in view of the following

mitigating circumstances:

a. The incident in question pertains to the year 2005 and a

period of more than 21 years has elapsed since the date of

MANGAL SINGH
2026.05.01 19:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
17
365-1 CRA-S-1725-SB-2011 (O&M)
365-2 CRA_S-2083-SB-2012 (O&M)

the occurrence, thus diluting the immediacy and

necessity of continued penal consequences.

b. The appellant has faced the rigours and ordeal of a

protracted trial spanning nearly two decades, which, in

itself, has caused considerable mental and emotional

hardship.

c. The appellant-Balwinder Kumar in CRA-S-1725-SB-

2011 has already undergone actual custody of 2 years 8

months and 24 days and appellant-Babu Singh in CRA-

S-2083-SB-2012 has undergone actual custody of 1 year

and 8 months, out of the total sentence of 3 years 6

months imposed upon them, which constitutes a

substantial portion of the sentence.

d. At the time of conviction, the appellant-Balwinder Kumar

was approximately 34 years of age and as of now, he is

around 49 years old, placing him at a mature and settled

stage of life, where the objectives of reformation and

rehabilitation would be better served by adopting a

lenient and humane approach in the matter of sentencing.

e. Similarly, at the time of conviction, appellant-Babu Singh

was approximately 55 years of age and as of now, he is

around 70 years old. The progression of time has thus

placed him in the twilight years of his life, warranting a

more humane and compassionate consideration in the

matter of sentence.

MANGAL SINGH
2026.05.01 19:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
18

           365-1                           CRA-S-1725-SB-2011 (O&M)
           365-2                           CRA_S-2083-SB-2012 (O&M)

f. The appellants have already undergone a substantial

period of custody, which, coupled with the long lapse of

time, satisfies the ends of justice.

g. The object of the NDPS Act, though stringent, is not

merely punitive but also reformative, and in cases where

the accused demonstrates long-term reformation, a

lenient view is justified.

h. The delay in conclusion of proceedings are not

attributable to the petitioner and the long lapse of time

coupled with the absence of criminal propensity deserves

a reformative and compassionate approach rather than a

purely retributive one.

22. This Court, in CRR-2697-2025 titled Lakshay Jain v. State of

Punjab & Another, vide order dated 14.11.2025, has held that sentencing

must prioritise a reformative approach, assessing an offender’s background

and circumstances rather than adopting a purely punitive stance. Mere

involvement in an offence does not, by itself, establish criminality; instead,

the totality of circumstances including the manner of the act, antecedents,

conduct, and intent must guide sentencing. The law, therefore, distinguishes

between errors of judgment and acts driven by deliberate mens rea,

recognising that offenders are often capable of reform and should not be

presumed beyond rehabilitation. The relevant extract of the aforesaid

judgment are as follows:

32. The imposition of punishment is a refined judicial function

that demands a careful harmonization of its underlying

MANGAL SINGH
2026.05.01 19:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
19
365-1 CRA-S-1725-SB-2011 (O&M)
365-2 CRA_S-2083-SB-2012 (O&M)

purposes namely, retribution, deterrence, and reformation. This

balance must reflect not only the reasoning of the Court but

also the ethical standards and social context in which justice is

administered. As societal values and circumstances evolve, the

prominence accorded to each of these aims necessarily varies,

requiring the Court to adapt its emphasis in response to the

changing demands of justice. The aforesaid principle found

early articulation in the writings of Justice Caldwell, who, in

his authoritative work “Criminology,” observed that:

“If the infliction of pain is to have its greatest effect upon

the behavior of a person, it must follow soon after the act for

which it is given. But punishment always takes place weeks

or even months after the offense has been committed, since

the offender must first be apprehended, tried, and convicted.

Such delay tends to disconnect the punishment from the

offense in the mind of the offender, and it may well be

considered as merely another painful experience in an

unjust world.”

33. Moreover, Italian criminologist and jurist Cesare Beccaria,

in his seminal treatise “On Crimes and Punishments,”

propounded the doctrine of penal parsimony, emphasizing that

the justification of any criminal justice system rests upon its

capacity to inflict the least possible evil necessary to achieve its

ends. The underlying premise is that punishment, being in itself

a necessary evil and devoid of inherent virtue, must be confined

MANGAL SINGH
2026.05.01 19:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
20
365-1 CRA-S-1725-SB-2011 (O&M)
365-2 CRA_S-2083-SB-2012 (O&M)

strictly within the bounds of necessity. The imposition of

suffering or restriction upon an offender cannot extend beyond

what is indispensable for the preservation of social order.

34. While ‘retributive’ object of sentencing is seen regressive,

in modern day sentencing jurisprudence for its focus on

punishing proportionally for the harm done and caters to the

negative senses of spite and anger against a wrongful act, the

rehabilitative/reformative approach examines the

circumstances surrounding the offender on social, economical,

physical and psychological level so as to reintegrate the

offender in the social mainstream. The law extends the benefit

of good and perceives a probability and possibility of reform. It

aims at capitalising a perceived social liability. The expectation

of law is based on the surrounding circumstances to distinguish

between a ‘criminal’ and an ‘offender’.

35. While the pre-requisites of crime do not distinguish two

persons, on the legal scale, this aspect is significant for

sentencing. A mere involvement of a person in crime may not

necessarily mark a person as a ‘criminal.’ ‘Criminality’ in

mind and action has to be determined from the totality of

circumstances including the mode and manner in committing

an offence, the conduct pre and post the offence, the criminal

antecedents, nature of involvement, influence of peers etc. and

not just from an isolatory consideration of commission of an

offence. A Court of law would not assume every offender to be

MANGAL SINGH
2026.05.01 19:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
21
365-1 CRA-S-1725-SB-2011 (O&M)
365-2 CRA_S-2083-SB-2012 (O&M)

beyond reform and differentiate in punishment on considering

whether the offences arise due to human error or that stem from

actions propelled by mens rea.

23. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances, including the

inordinate lapse of more than 2 decades since the occurrence coupled with

the fact that as against the substantive sentence of 03 years and 06 months,

appellant-Balwinder Kumar in CRA-S-1725-SB-2011 has already

undergone actual custody of 2 years 8 months and 24 days and appellant-

Babu Singh in CRA-S-2083-SB-2012 has undergone actual custody of 1

year and 8 months, I deem it appropriate to partly allow the petition. While

maintaining the judgment of conviction, the order of sentence so passed is

modified. The sentence awarded vide order dated 12.03.2011 passed by the

Judge, Special Court, Sri Muktsar Sahib, in Sessions case No.349 dated

20.10.2005 (RT No. 352 of 23.02.2007) arising out of FIR bearing No.202

dated 01.06.2005, registered under Sections 15 of the Narcotics &

Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 at Police Station Lambi, is modified to

the period already undergone.

24. All the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, are also

disposed of.

25. A copy of this order be sent to the High Court Legal Services

Committee for information and necessary action.

                                                        (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ)
           10.04.2026                                        JUDGE
           Mangal singh
                               Whether speaking/reasoned        :   Yes/No
                               Whether reportable               :   Yes/No



MANGAL SINGH
2026.05.01 19:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document