Ritik Rathore vs State Of H.P

Vivek Singh Thakur, J

Appellant has filed this appeal against judgment dated 23.9.2025 passed by Special Judge Rohru, District Shimla, H.P. in case CIS Filing No. 82/2025, titled as State of H.P. Vs. Ritik Rathore and others, in Case FIR No. 88 of 2024, dated 21.11.2024, registered in Police Station, Chirgaon, District Shimla, H.P. under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short the 'NDPS Act'), whereby appellant Ritik Rathore has been convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 21 of the NDPS Act, whereas co-accused Pradevan Chauhan and Vivek have been acquitted of the charges framed against them.

On completion of Trial, Trial Court had concluded that it has been proved on record beyond reasonable doubt that appellant Ritik Rathore is guilty of commission of offence under Sections 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act, for having found in possession of 13 grams Heroin and accordingly appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of ₹1,00,000/- for commission of offence punishable under Section 21 of the NDPS Act and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for 1 year.

On 17.4.2026 learned counsel for the appellant had submitted that in terms of instructions received by her, she would not be pursuing appeal on merits, but only with respect to disproportionate quantum of sentence imposed upon the appellant for recovery of intermediate quantity of contraband and has advocated for reduction of sentence on this count.

On 17.4.2026, after conclusion of the submissions made by both sides, matter was adjourned for 24.4.2026 by granting time to the appellant to search case law in support of plea of the appellant. On 24.4.2026, it was adjourned for 27.4.2026 and then for 29.4.2026.

In view of submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant, there is no necessity to refer, re-produce or discuss the evidence led by the prosecution and findings returned by the Trial court leading to conviction of the appellant and the only issue required to be adjudicated is whether quantum of sentence imposed upon the appellant is in consonance with settled law of land and proportionate to the sentence provided for different quantities of contraband.

To substantiate her plea, learned counsel for the appellant has referred judgments passed by different Benches of this High Court including Single Bench, which are as under:-

(i) Cr. Appeal No. 540 of 2024, titled as Yashpal Thakur Vs. State of H.P., dated 26.8.2025.

(ii) Cr. Appeal No. 204 of 2024, titled as Digvijay Singh Vs. State of H.P. dated 12.8.2025.

(iii) Cr. Appeal No. 501 of 2024, titled as Saurabh Bhatnagar Vs. State of H.P., dated 14.5.2025.

Learned counsel for the appellant has also referred order dated 3.12.2025 passed by the Apex court in Cr. Appeal No. 5226 of 2025, (SLP (Cr.) No. 15041 of 2025, titled as Raju Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, whereby sentence imposed upon the appellant for five years by the Trial Court, for having been found in possession of 850 grams of charas, confirmed by this High Court vide judgment dated 8.8.2025, passed in Cr. Appeal No. 574 of 2023, has been modified and being first offender, sentence has been reduced to period already undergone incarnation for more than two years.

Learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that judgments of this High Court referred by learned counsel for the appellant have been passed by learned Single Judge and, therefore, they are not binding precedent upon the Division Bench and appellant is also involved in another similar case and, therefore, he does not deserve reduction of sentence.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that pendency of another case cannot be taken into consideration for determining the quantum of sentence and, though the judgments, relied upon by her have been passed by learned Single Judge, however, ratio of law related to proportionality of quantum of sentence is relevant for considering her plea and, therefore, according to her prayer for reduction of sentence deserves to be accepted.

In this regard provisions of Section 49 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (Section 54 of the Indian Evidence Act), is also relevant, where it has been provided that in criminal proceedings bad character of accused is irrelevant which reads as under:-

"49. Previous bad character not relevant, except in reply.

In criminal proceedings, the fact that the accused has a bad character, is irrelevant, unless evidence has been given that he has a good character, in which case it becomes relevant.

Explanation 1. - This section does not apply to cases in which the bad character of any person is itself a fact in issue.

Explanation 2. - A previous conviction is relevant as evidence of bad character."

It is also relevant to refer order dated 24.10.2024 passed by the Apex Court in Cr. Appeal No. 2443 of 2023, arising out of SLP (Cr.) No. 7162 of 2024, titled as Jitender and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, wherein with respect to pendency of other trial against the accused, it has been observed that under trial accused is presumed to be innocent till found guilty.

Admittedly, in NDSP Act punishment has been provided with different quantum of sentence, depending upon the quantity of contraband, i.e. small, intermediate and commercial quantity. Section 21 of the NDPS Act reads as under:-

"21. Punishment for contravention in relation to manufactured drugs and preparations.-Whoever, in contravention of any provision of this Act or any rule or order made or condition of licence granted thereunder, manufactures, possesses, sells, purchases, transports, imports inter-State, exports inter-State or uses any manufactured drug or any preparation containing any manufactured drug shall be punishable,--

(a) where the contravention involves small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both;

(b) where the contravention involves quantity, lesser than commercial quantity but greater than small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees;

(c) where the contravention involves commercial quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to twenty years and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees:

Provided that the court may, for reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a fine exceeding two lakh rupees."

Recovered contraband in present case is heroin. In table of notification specifying small and commercial quantity, heroin is at Sr. No. 56, which provides that up to 5 grams the quantity of heroin shall be small quantity, and more than 250 grams heroin shall be commercial quantity. Meaning thereby that from 6 grams to 250 grams heroin shall fall in intermediate quantity.

Section 21 (b) provides that for contravention involves quantity, lesser than commercial quantity but greater than small quantity, would be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees. For small quantity the punishment is extendable up to one year with fine extendable to ₹10,000/- or with both. For contravention involving commercial quantity punishment provided is rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 10 years but which may extend to 20 years. Meaning thereby sentence in case of commercial quantity is from 10 years to 20 years with fine, not less than one lakh rupees extendable to two lakh rupees.

From the aforesaid, it is apparent that for quantity of more than 6 grams heroin to 250 grams of heroin is intermediate quantity and for having found in possession of heroin in contravention of provisions of the Act and Rules framed therein under up to 250 grams, the sentence shall be extendable up to 10 years, whereas for small quantity i.e. up to 5 grams, the sentence shall be up to one year and thereafter for 6 grams of heroin the sentence shall be definitely more than one year because imprisonment up to one year can be awarded for small quantity of heroin, i.e. up to 5 grams or less than 5 grams.

In present case, Trial Court has sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years for having found in possession of 13 grams of heroin. Sentence prescribed for intermediate quantity of heroin is between one to 10 years. If for lowest intermediate quantity of 6 grams, it is taken one year and for 250 grams, it shall be 10 years and for awarding mathematical proportionate sentence, an accused convicted for having been found quantity of heroin up to 25 grams, in normal circumstances would be awarded only one year whereas maximum sentence prescribed for intermediate quantity i.e. 10 years shall be awarded only for quantity of heroin ranging from 225 grams to 250 grams.

In our opinion for determining period of substantive sentence and quantum of fine, mathematical proportionality cannot be made basis. If such principle is made a norm for determining the sentence on the basis of quantum of contraband recovered from the convict, it would be impossible for the Court to exercise its discretion to determine the period of imprisonment depending upon given facts and circumstances of a case. For recovery of small/identical quantum of contraband, to determine the sentence, given facts and circumstances of each case are to be considered and appreciated independent of mathematical proportionality.

In determining quantum in Criminal Cases for the same offence, but in different cases, it is not always possible that every time 2+2 would be 4. A slightest different circumstance can cause different treatment to different accused person while determining the quantum of sentence. The quantum of sentence has to be determined by the Court in each case independent of any other case, but by taking into consideration all relevant factors and given circumstances of the said case.

For determining proportionate quantum of contraband, it cannot be calculated mathematically that up to 25 grams of heroin there shall be only one year imprisonment and/or the quantum of fine to be imposed will be one tenth of the maximum fine of one lakh rupees, which can be imposed. Because for quantum of small quantity with five grams Heroin, sentence up to one year can be imposed and fine up to ten thousand rupees. If mathematical proportion is applied to intermediate quantity from 6 grams to 250 grams by making it norm that up to 25 grams of contraband there shall be one year sentence and then for quantity higher than 25 grams, there shall be one year imprisonment with fine at the rate of ten thousand rupees for every 25 grams of heroin, than it will become disproportionate to the quantum of sentence provided for intermediate quantity of heroin, i.e. from 6 grams to 250 grams as for contravention involving small quantity of contraband up to 5 grams of heroin, sentence can be imposed up to one year and fine can be extended up to ten thousand rupees. In case of making it norm that up to

25 grams, there shall be one year imprisonment and ten thousand rupees fine, then it would amount to rewriting the provisions of Section 21 of the NDPS Act by judicial verdict because then the punishment provided for small quantity up to 5 grams of heroin shall extend up to 25 grams of heroin. It will amount to treat unequal in like manner, one belongs to category of accused for having in possession of small quantity up to 5 grams, whereas another belongs to category of accused having found in possession of quantity grater then small quantity of and some times five times, i.e. 5X5=25 grams of heroin, but the mathematical proportion would result into awarding of sentence of imprisonment for both i.e. person with small quantity and person with intermediate quantity on the same footings, which will be against the intention and purpose of the provision of the Act. Similar impact shall be there for determining quantum of fine to be imposed upon a convict found in possession of intermediate quantity of contraband ranging from 6 grams to 250 grams of heroin. For this reason, though we are in agreement with the findings returned by learned Single Judge in Cr. Appeal Nos. 540 of 2024, 204 of 2024 and 501 of 2024, referred supra, but with reservation about the quantum of sentence to be imposed in those cases.

The Apex Court in Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2012 (2) SCC 648 has reiterated that there is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an accused on proof of crime. The Courts have evolved certain principles. Twin objective of sentencing policy is deterrence and correction, the sentence would meet the ends of justice depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and the Courts must keep in mind the gravity of crime, motive for crime, nature of offence and all other attending circumstances.

In view of above observations, prayer of learned counsel for the appellant for reduction of sentence appears to be logical.

In this regard observation made by the Apex Court in Uggarsain Vs. State of Haryana and others, (2023) 8 SCC 109, are relevant, which read as under:-

"10. This court has, time and again, stated that the principle of proportionality should guide the sentencing process. In Ahmed Hussein Vali Mohammed Saiyed v. State of Gujarat, (2009) 7 SCC 254, it was held that the sentence should "deter the criminal from achieving the avowed object to (sic break the) law," and the endeavour should be to impose an "appropriate sentence." The Court also held that imposing "meagre sentences" "merely on account of lapse of time" would be counterproductive. Likewise, in Jameel v. State of U. P. (2010) 12 SCC 532, while advocating that sentencing should be fact dependent exercises, the court also emphasised that: (Jameel Case, SCC p. 535, para 15)

"15. ....the law should adopt the corrective machinery or deterrence based on factual matrix. By deft modulation, sentencing process be stern where it should be, and tempered with mercy where it warrants to be. The facts and given circumstances in each case, the nature of the crime, the manner in which it was planned and committed, the motive for commission of the crime, the conduct of the accused, the nature of weapons used and all other attending circumstances are relevant facts which would enter into the area of consideration."

(emphasis supplied)

Again, in Guru Basavaraj v. State of Karnataka, (2012) 8 SCC 734, the Court stressed that: (SCC p 744, para 33)

"33 ..... is the duty of the court to see that appropriate sentence is imposed regard being had to the commission of the crime and its impact on the social order"

(emphasis supplied)

and that sentencing includes "adequate punishment". In B.G. Goswami v. Delhi Administration (1974) 3 SCC 85, the Court considered the issue of punishment and observed that punishment is designed to protect society by deterring potential offenders as well as prevent the guilty party from repeating the offence; it is also designed to reform the offender and reclaim him as a law-abiding citizen for the good of the society as a whole. Reformatory, deterrent and punitive aspects of punishment thus play their due part in judicial thinking while determining the question of awarding appropriate sentences.

In Shyam Sunder v Puran, (1990) 4 SCC 731, the accused-appellant was convicted under Section 304 Part I IPC. The appellate court reduced the sentence to the term of imprisonment already undergone, i.e., six months. However, it enhanced the fine. This court ruled that sentence awarded was inadequate. Proceeding further, it opined that: (SCC p. 737, para 8)

"8. ......The court in fixing the punishment for any particular crime should take into consideration the nature of the offence, the circumstances in which it was committed, the degree of deliberation shown by the offender. The measure of punishment should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence. The sentence imposed by the High Court appears to be so grossly and entirely inadequate as to involve a failure of justice. We are of opinion that to meet the ends of justice, the sentence has to be enhanced".

(emphasis supplied)

This Court enhanced the sentence to one of rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years. This court has emphasized, in that sentencing depends on the facts, and the adequacy is determined by factors such as "the nature of crime, the manner in which it is committed, the propensity shown and the brutality reflected" [Ravda Sashikala v State of A.P. (2017) 4 SCC 546]. Other decisions, like: State of M.P. V. Bablu, (2014) 9 SCC 281; Hazara Singh V. Raj Kumar, (2013) 9 SCC 516 and State of Punjab v. Saurabh Bakshi (2015) 5 SCC 182 too, have stressed the significance and importance of imposing appropriate, "adequate" or "proportionate" punishments."

In Dev Narayan Mandal Vs. State of U.P., 2004 (7) SCC 257, the Apex Court has held that sentence awarded should be neither excessively harsh nor ridiculously low, while determining the quantum of sentence, the Court should bear in mind the principle of proportionality and sentence should be based on the facts of a given case, and gravity of offence, manner of commission of offence, age and sex of accused should be taken into account and decision of the Court in awarding sentence cannot be exercised arbitrarily or whimsically.

The quantum of fine, particularly in NDPS cases, has not be to be determined on the basis of proportionality with regard to quantum of substantial imprisonment as well as amount of fine.

It is also settled law that pendency of Trial in other case whether FIR or Criminal Case, cannot be taken into consideration for determining the quantum of sentence to be imposed upon an accused in a case under reference, keeping in view that there is always presumption of innocence and an under trial prisoner is not a persons guilty for commission of offence and thus, unless a person is convicted in any trial, he cannot be considered to be a convict so as to take into consideration the quantum of sentence to be imposed upon him. No doubt, offence under NDPS Act is a heinous crime which is creating physiological, social and mental health and other health problems, not only to youth, but also to large chunk of population and is destroying the Nation by pushing the youth for consuming the drug, leading to distortion of society and ultimately Nation. However, at the same time, it is also a matter of fact that in various judgments passed by the High Courts as well as the Apex Court, it has been observed that principles of criminal jurisprudence are also applicable to the cases pertaining to the NDPS Act.

Appellant has already undergone 1 year 3 months imprisonment and is serving his sentence in Model Central Jail Kanda, Shimla, whereas by applying above discussed principle of proportionality, he would have been convicted with sentence between one year to two years and even if it is considered that he is a habitual offender, then there may be imprisonment for more than 2 years.

Section 21 (b) of the NDPS Act prescribes imposition of fine up to one lakh rupees. For maximum intermediate quantity of heroin, i.e. 250 grams, sentence of fine is ten lakh rupees and by applying the principle of proportionality, it will be about ten thousand rupees for recovery of heroin upto 25 grams but at the same time it can be mathematically proportionate. However, it can be 10 years with ten lakhs fine for quantum of heroin of 13 or 25 grams. In the given facts and circumstances and as discussed supra, sentence imposed upon the appellant deserves to be modified.

Accordingly taking into consideration entire facts and circumstances, sentence imposed upon the appellant is modified and he is ordered to undergo sentence for a period of one and half and to pay fine of twenty thousand rupees and in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for three months for commission of offence punishable under Section 21(b) of NDPS Act. With the aforesaid modification to the quantum of sentence, rest of the judgment passed by the Trial Court is upheld being not contested on merits.

The appeal is dismissed, but with modification of quantum of sentence in aforesaid terms and appellant, if not warranted in any other case shall be released immediately.

Records of the Trial Court alongwith copy of this judgment be transmitted to the Trial Court forthwith.