Punjab & Haryana High Court Partly Allows NDPS Appeal, Reduces Sentence After Disbelieving Second Recovery of 84 Kg Poppy Husk

Case Name: Nirmal Singh v. State of Punjab
Date of Judgment: January 6, 2015
Citation: CRA-S-2274-SB-2005
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Darshan Singh

Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court partly allowed the appeal of Nirmal Singh, convicted under Section 15 of the NDPS Act, holding that the prosecution failed to establish the alleged second recovery of 84 kg of poppy husk, though the first recovery of 26 kg was duly proved. Justice Darshan Singh ruled that while the recovery from the accused’s possession at the time of arrest was credible and legally sustainable, the alleged second recovery pursuant to a disclosure statement was doubtful due to lack of corroborative evidence, absence of connection with the alleged place, and procedural inconsistencies. The Court concluded that the conviction could be maintained only for 26 kg of poppy husk, a non-commercial quantity, and accordingly reduced the sentence to the period already undergone with a reduced fine.

Summary: The appellant, Nirmal Singh, was convicted by the Special Court, Sangrur, for possession of 110 kg of poppy husk under Section 15 of the NDPS Act and sentenced to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹1,00,000. The case arose from his apprehension on January 5, 1998, when he was found carrying two saddlebags (khurjies) on a mare, containing 26 kg of poppy husk. The prosecution further alleged that during interrogation, the appellant disclosed the concealment of three additional bags in a field at village Khadial, from which 84 kg of poppy husk was recovered.

On appeal, the defence argued that the independent witness had turned hostile, the DSP who supervised the recovery was not from the concerned police circle, and there was unexplained delay in sending samples to the laboratory. The Court rejected these objections regarding the first recovery, finding consistent testimonies of official witnesses and confirming the integrity of samples. However, it found the second recovery doubtful, noting that the field owner was not examined, no link was shown between the accused and the site, and the location was 60–70 km away from his village in another district. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the second recovery beyond reasonable doubt, and that the signatures of the DSP on the seizure memo appeared to have been obtained later.

Decision: The High Court partly allowed the appeal, affirming the conviction only for possession of 26 kg of poppy husk, which falls below the commercial quantity threshold under Section 15 of the NDPS Act. The sentence was modified to the period already undergone (4 years, 2 months, and 13 days), and the fine reduced to ₹10,000, with a default sentence of two months’ rigorous imprisonment.