Courts Have To Apply Principle Of Proportionality While Imposing Sentence: Himachal Pradesh High Court Reduces Sentence Of NDPS Accused

The Himachal Pradesh High Court reduced the sentence of an accused under the NDPS Act (Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985), while relying upon the Supreme Court’s Judgment in the case of Uggarsain v. State of Haryana (2023) in which it was laid down that the Courts have to apply the principle of proportionality while imposing sentence.

An Appeal was preferred against the Judgment of the Special Judge, Shimla vide which the accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 21 of NDPS Act.

A Single Bench of Justice Rakesh Kainthla observed, “The learned Trial Court sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and pay a fine of ₹25,000/-, and in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for one year. The Central Government has notified the commercial quantity of ‘heroin’ as 250 grms, which means that a person possessing 250 grams of ‘heroin’ can be sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Uggarsain v. State of Haryana, (2023) that the Courts have to apply the principle of proportionality while imposing sentence.”

Advocate Madhurika Sekhon Verma appeared for the Appellant/Accused while Deputy Advocate General (DAG) Prashant Sen appeared for the Respondent/State.

Factual Background

The Police presented a challan against the Appellant-accused before the Trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 21, 25, and 29 of the NDPS Act. The accused was allegedly found to have hidden ‘heroine’ wrapped with ‘khaki tape’ in his vehicle’s dashboard. The said vehicle was parked at a lonely place. Thereafter, an FIR was registered and the Trial Court charged the accused with the commission of offences punishable under the NDPS Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

The Trial Court held that the testimonies of prosecution witnesses corroborated each other on material particulars. Resultantly, the accused was convicted under Section 21 of NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years along with a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Being aggrieved, the accused approached the High Court.

Reasoning

The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, said, “The result of the analysis shows that the exhibit stated as ‘heroine’ was a sample of Diacetylmorphine (‘heroin’). Since the integrity of the case property from the time of recovery till analysis has been proved, therefore, it was duly established on record that the accused was found in possession of 23 grams of ‘Heroin’, and there is no infirmity in the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court convicting the accused for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 21(b) of N.D.& P.S. Act.”

The Court noted that the Trial Court held that the sentence has to be imposed after considering the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was committed and the legislature has already considered these factors while providing a punishment of 10 years to a person in possession of 250 grams of ‘heroin’.

“No reason for deviation from the principle of proportionality was given by the learned Trial Court. Hence, applying the principle of proportionality, the sentence of four years cannot be justified”, it added.

The Court was of the view that the accused has already undergone more than one year of sentence, which is more than sufficient after applying the principle of proportionality.

“Therefore, he is ordered to undergo sentence for the period already undergone by him and pay a fine of ₹10,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for three months for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 21(b) of the ‘N.D& P.S Act’.”, ordered the Court.

Accordingly, the High Court partly allowed the Appeal, modified the Trial Court’s Judgment, and reduced the sentence.

Cause Title- Digvijay Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2025:HHC:27073)

Click here to read/download the Judgment