Dismissed¶47

State of Haryana v. Surjeet Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Dec 2025CRM-A/1382/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

State of Haryana v. Surjeet Singh, CRM-A-1382-MA-2018, Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh, Justice Anoop Chitkara, decided 02.12.2025: State's plea for enhancement of sentence refused; conviction under S.18(b) NDPS Act 1985 for 200 grams opium, intermediate quantity on lower band (small < 25 g, commercial > 2500 g); application under Section 378(3) CrPC treated as appeal under Section 377 CrPC; FIR No. 35 dated 09.02.2015, PS Nissing; Sessions Court case HRKR-1002654-2015, decision 06.01.2018; 43 days imprisonment undergone and fine Rs. 10,000; first-time offender; FIR ten years old; appeal pending seven years; appeal dismissed; not reportable.

What did the court decide?

None — the prayer for enhancement of sentence was rejected; the sentence of imprisonment already undergone (43 days) and the fine stand. ¶47

State of Haryana Vs Surjeet Singh — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None — the prayer for enhancement of sentence was rejected; the sentence of imprisonment already undergone (43 days) and the fine stand.

¶47

Issue for consideration

Whether the sentence awarded to the respondent — imprisonment for the period already undergone (43 days) and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- — for possessing 200 grams of opium should be enhanced, as sought by the State. +2 more

¶16

Court's answer

Though the State filed the application under Section 378(3) CrPC instead of Section 377 CrPC, the Court, without entering into the fundamental illegality, took up the application as an appeal under Section 377 CrPC for enhancement of sentence.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

Leave to appeal is granted.

¶23

Key takeaways

The quantity of contraband (200 grams of opium, punishable under S.18(b) of the NDPS Act, 1985) falls in the intermediate category at 8.00% of the upper limit of intermediate, i.e., on the lower band of intermediate.ratio¶43
Given the weight of opium and the mitigating factors (FIR ten years old, appeal pending seven years, first-time offender, exhibited genuine remorse and profound regret, and an old mother to take care of), the 43 days of sentence already undergone are sufficient and no enhancement is warranted.ratio¶46

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh (Anoop Chitkara J.), CRM-A-1382-MA-2018, decided 02.12.2025 — State of Haryana v. Surjeet Singh (sentence enhancement): the respondent, convicted under S.18(b) of the NDPS Act, 1985 for possessing 200 grams of opium — an intermediate quantity on the lower band (8.00% of upper limit; small quantity < 25 g; commercial quantity > 2500 g) — had been sentenced to imprisonment already undergone (43 days) and a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. The State's application, though erroneously filed under Section 378(3) CrPC instead of Section 377 CrPC, was treated by the Court as an appeal under Section 377 CrPC and leave was granted. Holding the sentence already undergone sufficient in view of the weight of the opium and the mitigating factors (FIR of 09.02.2015 about ten years old, appeal pending seven years, first-time offender, expressed remorse, and an old mother to take care of), the Court dismissed the appeal. Speaking/reasoned: Yes; Reportable: No.

¶1

��

¶2

CRM-A-1382-MA-2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM-A-1382-MA-2018

¶5

State of Haryana ......Applicant

¶6

Verus

¶7

Surjeet Singh ......Respondent

¶8

ORDER	ORDER	OPERATIVE PART
RESERVED	PRONOUNCED ON	PRONOUNCED OR FULL
ON
11.11.2025	02.12.2025	FULL PRONOUNCED

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

¶10

Present: Mr. Atul Gaur, AAG, Haryana.

¶11

Mr. Anshul Khurana, Advocate for the respondent.

¶12

¶13

ANOOP CHITKARA J.

¶14

FIR No.	Dated	Police Station	Section
35	09.02.2015	Nissing	18 of N	DPS Act
Criminal	Case number b	efore the Session	s Court	HRKR-1002654-2015
Date of D	ecision			06.01.2018
Names of	accused			Surjeet Singh

¶15

CRM-A-1382-MA-2018

¶16

The accused/respondent, who was convicted for possessing 200 grams of opium and was awarded a sentence to the period already undergone, i.e., for 43 days and a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, the State has come up before this Court seeking its enhancement.

¶17

Although the State was supposed to file an appeal under Section 377 CrPC, instead, they filed the application under Section 378(3) CrPC, which is leave to appeal against acquittal. However, without entering into the fundamental illegality, this Court is taking up this application under Section 377 CrPC rather than Section 378(3) CrPC as appeal for

¶18

��

¶19

ANJU RANI 2025.12.03 11:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

¶20

��

¶21

CRM-A-1382-MA-2018

¶22

enhancement of sentence. Further, this application shall be considered as appeal.

¶23

Leave to appeal is granted.

¶24

Main appeal

¶25

Counsel for the accused submits that in the appeal filed for enhancement, the accused had a right to seek his acquittal. He further submits that he would be contended and satisfied if the sentence which is already undergone is not enhanced.

¶26

Counsel for the State submits that the sentence of imprisonment was disproportionately on the lower side.

¶27

An analysis of the above would lead to the following outcome.

¶28

Dealing in 200 grams of opium in contravention of the NDPS Act, 1985, constitutes an offense under the following provisions and notifications:

¶29

Substance Name	"Opium"
Quantity detained	200 Gram
Punishable U/s	S.18(b)of NDPS Act,1985
Quantity type	Intermediate
Drug Quantity in % to upper limit of In- termediate	8.00%

¶30

Drug's Small & Commercial Qty. suggested by Committee report

¶31

Notification No. & date	Expert Committee Re 24.03.1995 & 23.08.200 Commercial	port dated 1 (Small and )
Specified as small & Commercial in S.	2(viia) & 2(xxiiia) NDPS A	ct, 1985
Notification No. & dated Sr. No.	S.O.1055(E) 92	10/19/2001
Common Name
(Name of Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substance (International non-proprietary name (INN)	Opium

¶32

��

¶33

ANJU RANI 2025.12.03 11:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

¶34

��

¶35

CRM-A-1382-MA-2018

¶36

Other non-proprietary name	******
Chemical Name	And any preparation containing opium
Small Quantity	< 25 Gram
Commercial Quantity	> 2500 Gram

¶37

Declared as punishable under NDPS A 2(xxiii) ND Notification No. & dated	ct and as per schedule defined PS Act, 1985 S.18 & S.2(xv) NDPS Act, S.O.821(E)	in S.2(xi) & 11/14/1985

¶38

Sr. No.	S.2(xv)
Common Name (Name of Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substance (International non-proprietary name (INN)	******
Other non-proprietary name	******
Chemical Name	�� S.2(xv) “opium” means— (a) the coagulated juice of the opium pop- py; and (b) any mixture, with or without any neu- tral material, of the coagulated juice of the opium poppy, but does not include any preparation con- taining not more than 0.2 per cent. of morphine; S.2 (xvii) “opium poppy” means— (a) the plant of the species Papaver som- niferum L; and (b) the plant of any other species of Papa- ver from which opium or any phenan- threne alkaloid can be extracted and which the Central Government may, by notifica- tion in the Official Gazette, declare to be opium poppy for the purposes of this Act; Explanation.-- For the purposes of clauses (v) (vi), (xv) and (xvi) the percentages in the case of liquid prepara- tions shall be calculated on the basis that a preparation containing one per cent. of a substance means a preparation in which one gram of substance, if solid, or one mililitre of substance, if liquid, is contained in every one hundred mililitre of the preparation and so on in proportion for any greater or less percent- age:

¶39

ANJU RANI 2025.12.03 11:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

¶40

��

¶41

CRM-A-1382-MA-2018

¶42

Provided that the Central Government may, having regard to the developments in the field of methods of calculating percentages in liquid preparations prescribed, by rules, any other basis which it may deem appropriate for such calculation.

¶43

Accordingly, in this case, the quantity of contraband is on the lower band of intermediate.

¶44

The convict/respondent has the following mitigating factors:

¶45

The FIR is 10 years old and the present appeal is pending for 7 year.
Convict was a First Time Offender
As per the counsel, there has been an exhibition of Genuine Remorse and Profound
Regret.
He has an old mother to take care

¶46

The respondent has already undergone 43 days of the sentence, which is sufficient given the weight of opium coupled with the mitigating factors.

¶47

Consequently, appeal is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶48

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 02.12.2025 anju rani Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No .

¶49

��

¶50

ANJU RANI 2025.12.03 11:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

State of Haryana v. Surjeet Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Haryana v. Surjeet Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Shayam Baba Stone Crusher Vs S.K.S. Nirman Vinijya Pvt. Ltd. and Another

Gpg Cattle Feed Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ranjit Singh

Gpg Cattle Feed Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ranjit Singh

Pyara Singh through His Lr and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Pyara Singh through His Lr and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Prem Chand Vs Des Raj Dhiman