Punjab & Haryana High Court Reduces Jail Term to Period Already Undergone in 500g Opium Possession Case Under Section 18(c) NDPS Act

Case Name: Balwinder Singh v. State of Haryana
Date of Judgment: October 13, 2025
Citation: CRA-S-2940-2011
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel

Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court upheld the conviction of the appellant under Section 18(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, but reduced his sentence to the period already undergone. Justice Sumeet Goel observed that the appellant had faced a prolonged trial spanning over sixteen years and that such delay itself constituted a form of mental suffering. The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in K. Pounammal v. Inspector of Police (2025 INSC 1014), emphasizing that mitigating factors such as the age of the convict, protracted trial duration, absence of criminal antecedents, and the small quantity involved warrant a reformative approach to sentencing.

Summary: The appellant was convicted by the Special Court (NDPS Act Cases), Karnal, for possession of 500 grams of opium without a valid permit or license and sentenced to four years’ rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of ₹25,000. On appeal, his counsel chose not to contest the conviction but sought reduction of the sentence, citing the long pendency of the proceedings since 2009, his clean antecedents, family responsibilities, and cooperative conduct during trial.

The State opposed the plea for leniency, maintaining that the trial court’s sentence was proportionate to the offence. However, the High Court referred to K. Pounammal v. Inspector of Police and B.G. Goswami v. Delhi Administration (1974) 3 SCC 85, reiterating that the purpose of sentencing is both deterrent and reformative, and that undue prolongation of criminal proceedings causes significant mental and emotional hardship. Justice Goel noted that the appellant had already undergone substantial incarceration and that no other criminal case was pending against him.

Decision: The High Court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to the period already undergone while maintaining the fine of ₹25,000. The appellant was directed to deposit the fine within one month, failing which the benefit of sentence reduction would stand withdrawn. All pending applications were disposed of.