Courts Must Apply Principle Of Proportionality While Imposing Sentence Under NPDS Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Himachal Pradesh High Court held that, while imposing a sentence under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, trial courts must adhere to the principle of proportionality and should not deviate from the quantity-based sentencing framework prescribed by the Central Government.

Justice Rakesh Kainthla: “The learned Trial Court held that the impact of heroin is severe on society, but the Central Government has already taken care of it while prescribing the quantity. The Legislature also considered the same while providing a range of sentences up to 10 years. Therefore, there is no reason to deviate from the provision of principle of proportionality and the sentence imposed by the learned Trial Court is liable to be interfered with”.

Background Facts:

The case arose from an incident dated 15 May 2018, when a police patrol team near Paraur village, Himachal Pradesh, noticed a suspicious vehicle. When the police signaled the driver to stop, he sped away towards another direction. After catching the vehicle, the driver identified himself as Saurabh Bhatnagar, and the other passenger identified himself as Abhishek Gupta.

Upon search of the vehicle, the police recovered two stick-shaped rolls and three additional items wrapped in star-patterned tape, concealed within the seat covers. Upon removal of the tape, translucent packets containing heroin were found. The total recovered quantity was approximately 50 grams. 

Subsequently, the police registered an FIR against both individuals sitting in the car, and trial court charged them with offences related to possession of narcotic drugs under the NDPS Act.. During the trial, eighteen witnesses were examined by the prosecution. The trial court held that the testimonies of witnesses corroborated each other.

However, one of the accused, Abhishek Gupta was found not guilty due to lack of evidence, while Saurabh Bhatnagar, the driver was found guilty and sentenced accordingly.

Being Aggrieved by the trial court's judgement, Saurabh Bhatnagar, the driver filed a criminal appeal before the High Court stating that the Trial Court had erred in convicting and sentencing him.

Contentions of the Appellant:

The Appellant contended that there were contradictions in the police testimonies, especially regarding the location of personal search and the timeline of the investigation. Also, several police officers who were present during recovery did not mention about it in their testimonies.

He further stated that the independent witnesses of the police had turned hostile, casting doubt on the recovery. Although CCTV cameras were installed at the location, the footage was neither seized nor produced in court. Only the Investigating Officer referred to video recordings, which other witnesses did not confirm.

The Appellant also submitted that his co-accused had been acquitted based on the same evidence. However, the sentence imposed upon him was excessive and disproportionate to the quantity of heroin recovered.

Findings:

The Court held that in Budh Ram v. State of H.P., 2020 the Supreme Court held that the prosecution's version cannot be discarded solely because the independent witnesses did not support it.

The Court observed that minor contradictions in the testimonies of police officers, such as discrepancies about the time of arrival at the police station, were natural, as different individuals perceive time differently. Such inconsistencies were held to be immaterial.

Likewise, the omission of some police witnesses to mention the recovery was also found to be insignificant. In Chet Ram v. State of H.P., HP High court held that a witness need not testify on all facts, and such omissions do not undermine the prosecution's case.

Regarding the non-production of CCTV footage, the Court held that failure to seize it amounts to a defective investigation, which by itself is not a ground for acquittal.

The Court also addressed the argument based on the acquittal of the co-accused. It clarified that Abhishek Gupta was acquitted because there was no evidence of his knowledge or conscious possession of the contraband. In contrast, Saurabh Bhatnagar, being the driver, was found to be in conscious possession.

The Court noted that 49 grams of heroin falls under the “intermediate quantity” as per Central Government notifications. The trial court had sentenced the appellant to eight years of rigorous imprisonment, a fine of ₹1 lakh.

However, applying the principle of proportionality, the Court held that an appropriate sentence would have been two years' imprisonment and a fine of ₹20,000 for 49 grams of heroin. The High Court remarked that trial courts should not deviate from the prescribed sentencing framework unless exceptional circumstances exist.

Thus, the Court partly allowed the appeal and reduced the sentenced of accused from 8 years to 2 years and also reduced the fine from ₹1 lakh to ₹20,000/-.

Case Name: Saurabh Bhatnagar v/s State of H.P.

Case No.: Cr. Appeal No. 501 of 2024

Date of Decision: 14.05.2025

For the Appellant : Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Advocate.

For the Respondent : Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General.

Click Here To Read/Download Order