Though Involved in Other NDPS Cases, No Unlawful Conduct During Trial—Sentence Can Still Be Reduced: Punjab & Haryana High Court

“The conviction is not under challenge... this Court deems it appropriate to reduce the sentence from 08 months to the period already undergone,” observed Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The Court delivered a nuanced ruling in a criminal appeal under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, affirming the conviction but reducing the sentence, considering the protracted trial and partial custody undergone.

The judgment offers critical insight into sentencing jurisprudence under the NDPS Act, reinforcing that leniency in sentence is not precluded merely due to past involvement in similar offences, especially when no adverse conduct is shown during a lengthy trial process.

“Protracted Trial Itself a Sufficient Ground for Leniency When No Further Criminal Conduct Is Proven”: Court Modifies Sentence Without Interfering Conviction

The appellant, Jorawar Singh @ Jora, had approached the High Court against the sentencing order passed by the Special Court, Hoshiarpur on 25 August 2025, whereby he was convicted under Section 21 of the NDPS Act and sentenced to eight months of rigorous imprisonment and ₹20,000 fine, in default of which he was to undergo an additional four months' RI. The case arose from FIR No. 242 dated 14.12.2020, registered at Police Station Mahilpur, for conscious possession of 35 grams of heroin, an intermediate quantity under the NDPS framework.

The appeal, however, was not on merits. As recorded by the Court:
“Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that he does not want to challenge the conviction of appellant on merits but… prays that the same may be reduced to that of already undergone.”

The appellant had already undergone 1 month and 19 days of the total sentence of 8 months. Counsel argued that the trial itself had stretched over five years, and that the appellant had not engaged in any unlawful activity during this period.

Appellant Caught With Heroin While on Parole from a Prior NDPS Conviction—Trial Proceeds for Five Years Without Interim Misconduct

As per the prosecution’s case, on 14 December 2020, a police team acting on secret information apprehended the appellant at Pensra Choe, recovering 35 grams of heroin from his person. He was found in conscious possession of the contraband and failed to produce any license or authorization.

Notably, the secret information also revealed that the appellant had previously been convicted for possession of 2 quintals of poppy husk, for which he had served 10 years in prison, and was out on parole at the time of the current offence. After investigation and trial, the appellant was convicted and sentenced under Sections 21, 61, and 85 of the NDPS Act.

Despite these facts, the appeal focused exclusively on the quantum of sentence, not the legitimacy of the conviction.

Can a Court Exercise Leniency in Sentencing Even When the Appellant Is Involved in Other Drug Cases?

The pivotal legal question before the Court was whether, in light of the appellant’s prior criminal history under the NDPS Act and his involvement in two other pending cases, any leniency could be granted in sentencing merely on the basis of the duration of the trial and custody already undergone.

The State, represented by Deputy Advocate General Mr. J.S. Arora, resisted the plea, pointing out that the appellant had a record of NDPS involvement, submitting that “the present appeal is liable to be dismissed.”

However, the Court carefully balanced competing considerations of deterrence and reform. Justice Bhardwaj observed:

“Admittedly, the present case pertains to year 2020 and the appellant was convicted and sentenced… in the year 2025 and thus he has faced a protracted trial for about 05 years. There is nothing on record to show that during this period, the appellant has indulged in any unlawful activity.”

The Court took judicial notice of the Custody Certificate dated 14.10.2025, which confirmed that the appellant was released on bail in another NDPS case, and found no adverse conduct attributable to him during the five-year period.

Conviction Upheld but Sentence Cut Down to Time Already Served

Emphasising the principle of proportionality in sentencing, the Court ruled:

“Keeping in view all the abovesaid factors into consideration, the conviction awarded by the learned trial Court to the appellant is upheld… As far as the sentence part is concerned, this Court deems it appropriate to reduce the sentence from 08 months to the period already undergone by the appellant.”

The Court, however, did not interfere with the ₹20,000 fine or the default sentence, leaving those elements intact.

Sentencing Must Balance Public Interest with Individual Circumstances

This judgment reiterates that even in NDPS cases, the Court is not precluded from considering individualised factors, such as delay in trial, partial incarceration, and good conduct during proceedings. The decision adds to a growing jurisprudence that stresses rehabilitative justice without compromising the seriousness of drug-related offences.

Justice Bhardwaj's ruling thus reflects a measured application of discretion—where the gravity of the offence is weighed against procedural delays and post-offence conduct, offering a window into how sentencing can remain both just and humane.

Date of Decision: 15 October 2025