Narender Singh vs. State of HP Cr. Appeal (C-SB) No. 43 of 2026 26.5.2026 Present: Mr Pavinder, Advocate, for the applicant/ appellant. Mr Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State. Cr. MP No. 777 of 2026 Learned Special Judge, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P (learned Trial Court) convicted the applicant/appellant for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 15 read with Section 29 of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years, pay a fine of ₹10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for two months for the possession of 1200 grams of Poppy Straw vide order dated 9.1.2026. 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 the reply to the application, taking a preliminary objection regarding the lack of maintainability. It is asserted that the police recovered 1200 grams of Poppy straw, 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 Mr Pavinder, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant, and Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State. 5. Mr Pavinder, learned Counsel for the applicant/appellant, submitted that the learned Trial Court erred in imposing the sentence of four 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. A copy of the seizure memo was not supplied to the applicant/appellant. The mandatory requirements of Section 52A of the NDPS Act were not complied with. The signatures of the persons depositing the case property were not obtained on the Malkhana register. The applicant has sufficient reasons to claim acquittal. Therefore, he 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 succeeded in proving 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 considerable thought to the submissions made at the Bar and have gone through the records carefully. 8. The Central Government has notified 1 kg of Poppy straw as a small quantity and more than 50 kg as a commercial quantity. Thus, the petitioner was found in possession of an intermediate quantity of poppy straw. A person possessing 50 kg of poppy straw can be punished with an imprisonment of 10 years. Thus, a person possessing 1200 grams of poppy straw prima facie could not have been sentenced to undergo the rigorous imprisonment of 4 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 9.1.2026 in Criminal Appeal No.8 of 2017 by the learned Trial court is ordered to be suspended during the pendency of the present appeal, subject to deposit of a 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. 43 of 2026 List for hearing in due course. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 26 May, 2026 (Chander)