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