Source: Himachal Pradesh High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the Justice Rakesh Kainthla stated that trial courts must not deviate from the quantity-based sentencing framework prescribed under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), as the Legislature and Central Government have already accounted for the severity of the substance's impact while framing the law. 

• The Himachal Pradesh High Court held this in the matter of Saurabh Bhatnagar v. State of H.P. (2025). 

What was the Background of Saurabh Bhatnagar v. State of H.P.(2025) Case? 

• On 15^th May 2018, a police patrol team comprising SI/SHO Kulwant Singh, ASI Kuldeep Singh, HC Abnesh Kumar, and HC Vinod Patial was traveling towards Paraur village in Himachal Pradesh in their official vehicle driven by Constable Ankush Kumar. 
• At approximately 11:20 AM, the officers noticed a suspicious vehicle bearing registration number HP-40B-6000 approaching from Paraur direction with a flag rod installed. 
• When the police signaled the vehicle to stop, the driver accelerated and sped away towards Arla, raising suspicions among the officers. 
• The police team pursued the vehicle and requested HC Vikas Arora to intercept it near Sangam Palace, Arla, with Manoj Chaudhary and Rajeev Kumar serving as independent witnesses. 
• Upon stopping the vehicle, the police identified the driver as Saurabh Bhatnagar and the passenger as Abhishek Gupta. 
• During the search of the vehicle, officers discovered two stick-shaped rolls wrapped with black tape bearing star patterns hidden in the driver's seat cover. 
• Three additional sticks wrapped with yellow star tape and green-black star tape were found concealed in the front seat cover. 
• When officers removed the tape wrapping, they discovered translucent packets tied with knots containing what appeared to be heroin. 
• The substance was weighed using a scale brought to the scene by Constable Malkiyat Singh, revealing a total quantity of approximately 50 grams of heroin. 
• The police sealed the recovered substance in a cloth parcel with eight impressions of seal 'FO' and filled NCB-1 Form in triplicate. 
• The vehicle and its keys were seized following proper procedural protocols. 
• HC Vikas Arora issued a separate challan for unauthorized installation of the flag rod and photographed the entire proceedings. 
• An FIR was registered at Police Station Bhawarna, and SI Kulwant Singh conducted the investigation. 
• The case property was deposited in the Malkhana through proper chain of custody. 
• Samples were sent to FSL Junga for analysis, which confirmed the substance as Diacetylmorphine (heroin). 
• The prosecution examined eighteen witnesses during the trial proceedings. 
• The independent witnesses Manoj Chaudhary and Rajeev Kumar did not support the prosecution's case, having turned hostile. 
• The trial court found the testimonies of official witnesses to be corroborative and reliable despite the hostile independent witnesses. 
• Co-accused Abhishek Gupta was acquitted due to lack of evidence establishing his knowledge or conscious possession of the contraband. 
• Saurabh Bhatnagar, being the driver and son of the vehicle owner, was found guilty of conscious possession under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). 
• The trial court sentenced Saurabh Bhatnagar to eight years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹1,00,000, with an additional six months of simple imprisonment in default of fine payment. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that minor contradictions in police testimonies and omissions by some police witnesses to mention recovery were immaterial, citing precedents in Chet Ram v. State of H.P. and Budh Ram v. State of H.P. (2020) that such inconsistencies do not undermine the prosecution's case. 
• The Court clarified that the acquittal of co-accused Abhishek Gupta was based on absence of evidence establishing his knowledge of the contraband, while appellant Saurabh Bhatnagar, being the driver and vehicle owner's son, was found in conscious possession of the heroin. 
• The Court observed that 49 grams of heroin constituted "intermediate quantity" under Central Government notifications (5 grams being small quantity and 250 grams commercial quantity), attracting punishment up to 10 years under Section 21(b) of the NDPS Act. 
• Emphasizing the principle of proportionality in sentencing as established in Uggarsain v. State of Haryana (2023), the Court held that trial courts must adhere to the quantity-based sentencing framework prescribed by the Central Government without deviation unless exceptional circumstances exist. 
• The Court noted that while the trial court considered heroin's severe societal impact, the Central Government and Legislature had already factored this consideration while prescribing quantity-based punishments and sentencing ranges for intermediate quantities. 
• Applying proportionality principles, the Court determined that the appropriate sentence for 49 grams of heroin should be two years rigorous imprisonment and ₹20,000 fine, finding the trial court's sentence of eight years and ₹1,00,000 fine excessive and disproportionate to the quantity of offence. 
• The appeal was partly allowed with judicial intervention to ensure adherence to the prescribed NDPS Act sentencing framework, reducing the sentence from eight years to two years imprisonment and fine from ₹1,00,000 to ₹20,000. 

What is the Principle of Proportionality? 

• The Doctrine of Proportionality is a legal principle in Administrative Law that requires a rational connection between the intended outcome and the means employed to achieve it. 
• It is a legal rule that balances government actions' means and outcomes, ensuring that governments use suitable methods aligned with their goals. 
• The principle mandates that actions must be rational, fair, and reasonable, with courts rejecting arbitrary or biased governmental actions. 
• It forms part of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, preventing arbitrary government actions and ensuring procedural fairness. 
• The doctrine ensures fair decisions by balancing government goals with individual rights while assessing whether government actions cause undue harm. 
• Courts examine both the correctness of procedure and the fairness of punishment while retaining the Executive's decision-making authority. 
• In criminal sentencing, the principle requires that punishment be proportionate to the gravity of the offence, considering factors like nature of crime, manner of commission, and circumstances involved. 
• The doctrine originated in European Administrative Law and has evolved from the Wednesbury Principle of reasonableness, subjecting decisions to higher scrutiny than mere reasonableness tests. 
• Under this principle, decisions must not only be reasonable but must also strike a proper balance between the benefits and drawbacks of the outcome achieved. 
• Administrative tribunals review actions under this doctrine before courts intervene, ensuring a structured approach to judicial review of governmental decisions.