Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 18662 (HP)

SUNNY KAPOOR @ HANI v. STATE OF HP

CRMP/3192/2026 · 2026-08-19

Rakesh Kainthla

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Sunny Kapoor @ Hani vs. State of H.P. Cr. Appeal (C-SB) No.174 of 2026 Reserved on 12.08.2026 19.08.2026 Present: Mr N.K.Thakur, Senior Advocate, with M/S Divya Raj Singh and Karan Sadyal, Advocates, for the appellant. Mr Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State. Cr. MP No. 3192 of 2026 Heard. 2. The applicant has filed the present application for suspension of sentence imposed by learned Chairman, H.P. State Waqf Tribunal, exercising the powers of Special Judge, Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. (learned Trial Court) on 24.02.2026, in Sessions Case (RBT) No. 149/2023/2020. It has been asserted that the appeal is likely to succeed in all eventualities. The final disposal of the appeal is likely to take some time. The applicant is aged 36 years and has family to look after. He is the sole earner of the family, and his family is suffering because of his incarceration. The applicant remained on bail throughout the trial, and there was nothing adverse against him. Therefore, it was prayed that the present application be allowed and the sentence imposed by the learned Trial Court 2 be suspended. 3. The application is opposed by filing a reply asserting that the applicant was found in possession of a gunny bag containing 15.290 kilograms of poppy straw. The learned trial Court found the applicant guilty of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 15(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight years, pay a fine of ₹one lakh and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for one year. The applicant was convicted in F.I.R. No. 40 of 2013, dated 10.06.2013, registered at Police Station Sadar Pathankot. The applicant was found in possession of a huge quantity of poppy straw. There is no infirmity in the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court. The appeal is likely to be dismissed in all eventualities. Hence, it was prayed that the application be dismissed. 4. I have heard Mr N.K. Thakur, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by M/s Divya Raj Singh and Karan Sadyal, Advocates, for the applicant and Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the 3 respondent/State. 5. Mr N.K. Thakur, learned Senior Advocate for the applicant, submitted that the applicant has undergone imprisonment of 11 months and three days as per the custody certificate annexed to the reply. The applicant was found in possession of 15.290 kilograms of poppy straw, and the sentence of eight years imposed by the learned trial Court is highly disproportionate. The applicant has undergone a substantial part of the imprisonment that can be awarded to him by applying the principle of proportionality. Therefore, he prayed that the present application be allowed and the sentence imposed by the learned trial Court be suspended during the pendency of the appeal. 6. Mr Ajeet Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent, submitted that the applicant is a habitual offender. He was convicted in F.I.R. No. 40 of 2013, dated 10.06.2013. The sentence imposed by the learned trial Court was adequate. The applicant does not have an arguable case in his favour, and the appeal is likely to be dismissed in all eventualities. Therefore, he prayed that the present application be dismissed. 4 7. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made atthe bar and have gone through the records carefully. 8. The judgment of the learned trial Court shows that the applicant was found in possession of 15.290 kilograms of poppy straw. The Central Government has specified 50 Kg of poppy straw as a commercial quantity, which means that a person possessing 50 Kg of poppy straw can be sentenced to imprisonment of 10 years. If the principle of proportionality is applied to the present case, the sentence of eight years awarded by the learned trial Court, prima facie, appears disproportionate. 9. It was submitted that the applicant was convicted in F.I.R. No. 40 of 2013, dated 10.06.2013, and the applicant is liable to enhanced punishment; hence, the sentence imposed by the learned trial Court cannot be said to be disproportionate. This submission will not help the State. The record of the learned trial Court does not show that this submission was made before the learned trial Court. Section 211 (7) of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C) provides that if the accused has been previously convicted and he is liable to enhanced punishment 5 because of such conviction and it is intended to prove such previous conviction, the date and place of previous conviction would be stated in the charge and if such statement has been omitted, the Court may add it any time before sentence is passed. The record of the learned Trial Court does not show that any such charge was framed by the learned Trial Court. 10. Section 236 of the Cr.PC. provides that when the person is charged with the previous conviction and the accused does not admit previous conviction, the Judge shall take evidence in respect of the previous conviction and shall record the findings thereon. 11. This procedure has not been followed in the present case, and the previous conviction cannot be said to have been proved; hence, the submission that the accused was liable to enhanced punishment because of his previous conviction cannot be accepted. 12. The custody certificate shows that the applicant has undergone 11 months and 3 days of sentence as on 28.07.2026. Thus, the applicant has undergone a substantial part of the imprisonment 6 that can be awarded to him if the principle of proportionality is applied to him. 13. The present appeal has been filed in the year 2026. This Court has a roster for the year 2025, which means that the appeal is not likely to be taken up for hearing before the applicant has undergone a considerable part of the sentence awarded to him. 14. In view of above, the present application is allowed and operation and execution of the substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed by learned trial Court is ordered to be suspended till the disposal of the appeal, subject to deposit of fine, if not deposited earlier and furnishing personal bond in the sum of ₹50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court, with an undertaking to appear before this Court as and when called upon to do so and surrender before the learned Trial Court to serve sentence, in case of dismissal of the present appeal. 15. The learned Trial Court is directed to transmit the bail bonds, so furnished by the applicant before it, for placing them on record. 16. The present application stands disposed of. 7 Cr. Appeal (C-SB) No. 174 of 2026 17. Record of the learned trial Court has been received. 18. List the matter for hearing in due course. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 19th August, 2026 (Ravinder)