Disposed¶16

State of Hp v. Milap Chand

NDPS – Sentence enhancement

Himachal Pradesh HC12 Dec 2025CR.A/392/2024

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: NDPS Act Section 20; Section 20(b)(ii)(A) small quantity punishment; Section 20(b)(ii)(C) commercial quantity; charas 4.400 kgs.; sentence enhancement appeal; maintainability of State appeal; deemed charge; State of H.P. v. Shaul Borov (Cr. A. No. 325/2023; SLP Diary No. 50995/2024); related pending Criminal Appeal No. 353 of 2024; Himachal Pradesh High Court, Shimla; oral judgment dated 12.12.2025.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the State: appeal held not maintainable and disposed of along with pending applications, if any; record of the appeal to be tagged with Cr. Appeal No. 353 of 2024 with copy of the order placed on that file. ¶16

State of Hp Vs Milap Chand — Narcotics (NDPS) | Himachal Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether the State's appeal for enhancement of sentence is maintainable where the respondent, though charged for possession of commercial quantity of charas (4.400 kgs.) under Section 20 NDPS Act, was punished only for the small quantity, and a separate State appeal against his acquittal under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) is pending.

¶16

Court's answer

In view of the judgment in State of H.P. v. Shaul Borov (Cr. A. No. 325/2023, decided 20.12.2023) as affirmed by the Supreme Court (decided 14.11.2024), the respondent is deemed to have been charged for offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) NDPS Act for the commercial quantity, but is to be considered punished under Section 20(b)(ii)(A) for the small quantity, and stands acquitted under Section 20(b)(ii)(C).

¶14

Ratio / Principle

On the above facts and circumstances, the present appeal for enhancement of sentence is held not maintainable and is accordingly disposed of.

¶16

Key takeaways

Record, if any, in this appeal is to be tagged with Cr. Appeal No. 353 of 2024, and a copy of this order is to be placed on the record of Cr. Appeal No. 353 of 2024.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

NDPS — Sentence enhancement — Maintainability. The High Court of Himachal Pradesh held the State's appeal (Cr. Appeal No. 392 of 2024) for enhancement of sentence not maintainable and disposed of it. The respondent, charged on a challan alleging possession of commercial quantity of charas (4.400 kgs.) under Section 20 NDPS Act, had been convicted but punished only for small quantity; following State of H.P. v. Shaul Borov (Cr. A. No. 325/2023, decided 20.12.2023), affirmed by the Supreme Court (SLP Diary No. 50995/2024, decided 14.11.2024), he was deemed charged under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) but punished under Section 20(b)(ii)(A) NDPS Act, and stood acquitted under Section 20(b)(ii)(C). Since the State's separate Criminal Appeal No. 353 of 2024 against that acquittal is pending, the record of this appeal was directed to be tagged with it and a copy of the order placed on its file.

¶1

2025:HHC:43460

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

Cr. Appeal No. 392 of 2024 Date of decision: 12.12.2025.

¶4

State of Himachal Pradesh	...Petitioner.
Versus
Milap Chand	…Respondent.

¶5

Coram

¶6

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the Petitioner. Ms. Sharmila Patial, Additional Advocate General. For the Respondent : Mr. Yashveer Singh Rathore, Advocate.

¶7

Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge (Oral)

¶8

Learned Additional Advocate General submits that in

¶9

present case, challan was presented against the respondent for having been found in possession of commercial quantity of Charas, i.e., 4.400 kgs. and accordingly, charge for commission of offence punishable under Section 20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), was framed. However, respondent has been convicted under Section 20 of NDPS Act, but with the punishment provided for small

¶10

1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶11

2 2025:HHC:43460

¶12

Cr. Appeal No. 392 of 2024

¶13

quantity for having been found in possession of only small quantity of charas.

¶14

In view of the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Cr. A. No. 325/2023, titled as State of H.P. vs. Shaul Borov , decided on 20.12.2023 as affirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No. Diary No.50995/2024 (I.A. No.257015/2024), titled as State of H.P. vs. Shaul Borov , decided on 14.11.2024, for presentation of challan for commercial quantity, respondent has to be deemed to have been charged for commission of offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C), but for awarding sentence of small quantity only, the respondent has to be considered to have been punished under Section 20(b)(ii)(A) of NDPS Act and thus, respondent has been acquitted under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of NPDS Act, whereas present appeal has been filed for enhancement of sentence.

¶15

It has been further submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General that in present case, another appeal against acquittal of respondent under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act, bearing Criminal Appeal No. 353 of 2024, preferred by the State is pending adjudication.

¶16