1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 126 CRA-S-1934-SB-2005 (O&M) Date of decision : 02.09.2026 Rameshwar Dass @Mesra ..... Appellant VERSUS State of Haryana ..... Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present : Mr. Sagar Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Deepali Verma, Asst. A.G. Haryana. ***** SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. The learned State Counsel has filed custody certificate of the appellant. The same be taken on record. 2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.10.2005, passed by the Court of learned Special Judge Panipat, designated under NDPS Act, hereinafter being referred to as ‘trial Court’ only. 3. Briefly stating the facts emerging from record are that one FIR, i.e. the FIR No.177 dated 07.12.2000, was registered in Police Station Sadar Panipat, for the commission of offence punishable under Section 20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, hereinafter being referred to as ‘NDPS Act’. The abovementioned FIR was lodged at the instance of ‘SI Sandeep Singh’. In the wake of abovementioned FIR, the investigation GAURAV THAKUR 2026.09.03 09:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 was taken up by the police, and as an outcome of abovesaid investigation, the appellant was sent to face trial before the learned trial Court. 4. The appellant participated in the abovementioned trial, which, by virtue of impugned judgment, culminated into his conviction. Thus, vide order dated 06.10.2005, on the point of quantum of sentence, following sentence was awarded to the appellant:- Offence under Sections Sentence 20 of NDPS Act Rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 ½ years. 5. Aggrieved of the abovementioned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the present appeal has been preferred. 6. In nut-shell, the facts emerging from record are that the FIR of this case came into being at the instance of ‘SI Sandeep Singh’, who had reported that on 07.12.2000, when he was leading a team of police officials, deputed for crime detection duty, near village Pasina Kalan, a person carrying a green-coloured polythene bag was spotted, who was coming from Old Bus Stand, Samalkha side. According to above-named police officer, when the abovesaid person noticed the presence of police party, he tried to take a U-turn and started walking briskly towards Deepmala Spinning Mills. As per above-named police officer, on the basis of suspicion, the abovesaid person was apprehended, who on enquiry disclosed his name as ‘Rameshwar Dass @Mesra’ (the appellant herein). The above-named police officer had further reported that the search of the person of abovesaid person was GAURAV THAKUR 2026.09.03 09:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3 conducted and during search, it was found that he was carrying 1 kg of charas. 7. It was case of the prosecution that pursuant to recovery of abovementioned contraband, necessary formalities with regard to seizure & sealing of contraband, lodging of FIR, and formal arrest of the accused were completed, and further investigation taken up. According to prosecution, during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer inspected the spot, prepared rough site plan of the place of occurrence, recorded the statement of witnesses, under Section 161 CrPC, and completed other usual formalities of investigation. Thereafter, the final report under Section 173 of CrPC was filed. 8. To discharge its burden with regard to charge against the appellant, the prosecution in the instant case had relied upon documentary as well as oral evidence. The documents proved and marked with exhibits, by the prosecution, were:- Ex.PA - The information memo sent to the police station (ruqqa) Ex.PA/1 - First Information Report Ex.PA/2 - Endorsement recorded on the information memo Ex.PB - Affidavit of Ct. Ranbir Singh Ex.PC - Affidavit of HC Gauri Dutt Ex.PD - Affidavit of Ct. Rajesh Kumar Ex.PE - Notice under Section 50 of NDPS Act served upon the appellant Ex.PE/1 - Reply to abovementioned notice by the appellant Ex.PF - Recovery memo of contraband Ex.PG - Site plan of the place of recovery GAURAV THAKUR 2026.09.03 09:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 Ex.P1 - Remainder parcel 9. To provide support and corroboration to the above-mentioned documentary evidence, as many as six witnesses were examined by the prosecution. They were:- PW-1 - ASI Sukhbir Singh PW-2 - Ct. Ranbir Singh PW-3 - HC Gauri Dutt PW-4 - Ct. Rajesh Kumar PW-5 - SI Sandeep Singh PW-6 - Balraj Singh Jakhar, Naib Tehsildar 10. Once the prosecution evidence was recorded, the learned trial Court completed all the essential formalities, enshrined under Section 313 CrPC. Thereafter, opportunity of defence evidence was afforded to the appellant. In his defence evidence, no evidence was adduced by the appellant. 11. Once the evidence of both the parties was complete, the learned trial Court gave opportunity to the learned public prosecutor and the learned counsel for the appellant to address arguments. Thereafter, a judgment of conviction, against the appellant, was pronounced and, accordingly, the appellant was sentenced to undergo imprisonment, as detailed hereinabove. 12. Heard. 13. It has been contended on behalf of appellant that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence deserve to be set aside, as both of them are outcome of non-application of judicial mind. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the learned trial Court has failed to GAURAV THAKUR 2026.09.03 09:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 5 appreciate that necessary ingredients meant for the commission of offence under Section 20 of NDPS Act were not proved by the prosecution, and the evidence was grossly inadequate to meet the standard prescribed under the law, for proving the charge. As per learned counsel for the appellant, merely, on the basis of conjectures and surmises, as well as assumptions and presumptions, the learned trial Court held that charges against the appellant were successfully proved. The learned counsel for the appellant has further contended that the appellant has been wrongly held guilty, and convicted, by the learned trial Court. 14. However, during the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that in the instant appeal, the appellant is not inclined to challenge the finding of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court. The learned counsel for the appellant has categorically contended that at this stage, by virtue of present appeal, the appellant is challenging the order on quantum of sentence only. 15. It has been further contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the incident had taken place way back in the year 2000. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant is facing the agony of litigation for the last more than 26 years and that, in fact, he has already suffered more punishment than he deserved. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the offence in question was the first offence committed by the appellant, and that before or after the offence, related to present case, the appellant has not been prosecuted for any other offence. GAURAV THAKUR 2026.09.03 09:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 6 16. In addition to above, the learned counsel for the appellant has also argued that in the present case, the appellant has already undergone imprisonment for a period of two years and eleven months. According to learned counsel for the appellant, in view of above-discussed factors, and the fact that minimum sentence has not been prescribed for the offence, for which the appellant was convicted, the sentence already undergone by the appellant may be treated to be sufficient. 17. Per contra, the learned State Counsel has argued that the appellant has been found guilty for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 20 of NDPS Act. According to learned State Counsel, the sentence awarded to the appellant, i.e. imprisonment for a period of ten years, is already on lower side, and that the appellant is not entitled to a sentence of less than ten years imprisonment. As per learned State Counsel, the instant appeal has no merit and deserves dismissal. 18. The record has been perused carefully. 19. Once it is categorical stand of the appellant that he is not challenging the judgment of conviction, passed by the learned trial Court, it is hereby held that there is no scope for interference or indulgence in the findings recorded by the learned trial Court, with regard to conviction of appellants, for the offence under Sections 20 of NDPS Act. Accordingly, the abovementioned finding is hereby affirmed and qua the judgment of conviction instant appeal is hereby dismissed. 20. In the present case, a very interesting question has been cropped up. It is as to whether the quantity of contraband recovered from the GAURAV THAKUR 2026.09.03 09:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 7 possession of appellant was commercial quantity or non-commercial quantity. As per case, set-out by the prosecution, 1 kg charas was recovered from the possession of appellant. The abovesaid quantity was exactly equal to the commercial quantity of charas. As per notification, issued by the Central Government, under NDPS Act, the quantity mentioned against commercial quantity of charas is 1 kg. However, Section 2(viia) of NDPS Act prescribes the definition of ‘commercial quantity’, which reads as under:- ‘commercial quantity, in relation to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, means any quantity greater than the quantity specified by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette.” In view of abovementioned definition of ‘commercial quantity’, read with the contents of notification, issued by the Central Government under NDPS Act, it is hereby observed that the quantity of contraband recovered from the possession of appellant was non-commercial quantity. 21. 21. As far as the order on quantum of sentence is concerned, in view of the fact that the appellant has already undergone imprisonment for a period of two years and eleven months, against the awarded sentence of ten years, and that he was never prosecuted for any offence, either before the instant case or thereafter, it is hereby held that the appellant is entitled to a lenient view. 22. In view of abovementioned observations, the sentence awarded to the appellant is hereby held to be harsh and, as a consequence thereof, it is GAURAV THAKUR 2026.09.03 09:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 8 hereby observed that with regard to quantum of sentence, there is need for interference and indulgence in the impugned order on the point of quantum of sentence by exercising the appellate jurisdiction vested in this Court. Thus, in my opinion, by exercising the abovementioned jurisdiction, the sentence awarded to the appellant needs to be rationalized and reduced. 23. In the light of above observations, if the factual matrix of present case is analyzed, it transpires that following are the points which are required to be taken into consideration: - (a) that the incident in question had taken place about 26 years ago; (b) that the appellant is facing the agony of protracted trial for the last 26 years; (c) that against the awarded sentence of ten years, the appellant has already undergone imprisonment for a period of two years and eleven months; (d) that the appellant has clean record, before and after the offence in question; (e) that appellant is a 62-year-old person; and (f) that the quantity of contraband, found in possession of appellant, was non-commercial quantity. 24. As a cumulative effect of abovementioned observations, it is hereby held that in the present case, the appellant is entitled to a lenient view, and that the sentence already undergone in the present case, is adequate to meet the ends of justice. GAURAV THAKUR 2026.09.03 09:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 9 25. As a sequel to the aforesaid discussions, the present appeal is hereby partly allowed. The judgment of conviction is upheld; but order on the point of quantum of sentence is modified, and the sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 26. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of, accordingly. (SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE 02.09.2026 Gaurav Thakur Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No GAURAV THAKUR 2026.09.03 09:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document