Joginder Singh alias Rinku vs. State of HP Cr. Appeal (C-SB) No. 50 of 2026 26.5.2026 Present: Ms Yamini Sharma, Advocate, for the applicant/appellant. Mr Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State. Cr. MP No. 874 of 2026 Learned Special Judge, Rohru, District Shimla, H.P (learned Trial Court) convicted the applicant/appellant for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 21 read with Section 29 of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years, pay a fine of ₹20,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the possession of 15.15 grams of heroin vide judgment and order dated 16.1.2026. 2. Aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court, the accused/applicant has preferred an appeal and also an application for the suspension of the sentence. 3. The State has filed a reply to the application, taking a preliminary objection regarding the lack of maintainability. It is asserted that the police recovered 15.15 grams of Heroin, which is an intermediate quantity. The prosecution has proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The petitioner has no case in his favour; therefore, it is prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 4. I have heard Ms Yamini Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant, and Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State. 5. Ms Yamini Sharma, learned Counsel for the applicant/appellant, submitted that the learned Trial Court erred in imposing the sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment, which is harsh and disproportionate. There are material contradictions in the statements of witnesses which were ignored by the learned Trial Court. The link evidence is missing, and the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act were not complied with. The applicant has sufficient reasons to claim acquittal. Therefore, she prayed that the present application be allowed and the sentence imposed by the learned Trial Court be suspended. 6. Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The learned Trial Court had rightly appreciated the evidence. The applicant has no case in his favour; therefore, he prayed that the present application be dismissed. 7. I have given a considerable thought to the submissions made at the Bar and have gone through the records carefully. 8. The Central Government has notified 5 grams of heroin as a small quantity and 250 grams of heroin as a commercial quantity. A person possessing 250 grams of heroin can be punished with imprisonment for 10 years. Thus, the person possessing 15.15 grams of heroin prima facie cannot be sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years by applying the principle of proportionality, and the petitioner has a prima facie, arguable case in his favour. Therefore, the present application is allowed and the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded vide order of sentence dated 16.1.2026 in Criminal Appeal No.10 of 2024 by the learned Trial court is ordered to be suspended during the pendency of the present appeal, subject to deposit of fine and furnishing personal and surety bond in the sum of ₹50,000/- to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court within four weeks undertaking to appear before this Court as and when directed to do so and surrender before the learned Trial Court in case of dismissal of appeal. The bail bonds so furnished shall be transmitted to this Court for record. The present application stands disposed of. Cr. Appeal (C-SB) No. 50 of 2026 List for hearing in due course. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 26th May, 2026 (Chander)