‘State-Inflicted Injustice’: Punjab & Haryana HC Awards ₹3 Lakh Compensation to Man Detained Nine Months Beyond Sentence, Citing Violation of Constitutional Rights
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana Single Bench of Justice Harpreet Singh Brar dismissed an appeal against conviction under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, while awarding ₹3,00,000/- as compensation for excessive custody undergone by the appellant. The Court held that the appellant had already served a longer term in custody than the sentence imposed and directed the State to disburse the compensation within eight weeks of receiving a certified copy of the order. The State was also granted liberty to recover the amount from the officials responsible for the oversight.
The appeal challenged a judgment of conviction and sentencing order dated 5 December 2006, wherein the appellant was convicted under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), pursuant to an FIR registered on 12 July 2002 at Police Station Nurmahal. The Special Court, Jalandhar, had sentenced the appellant to rigorous imprisonment for one year and six months, along with a fine of ₹5,000, and an additional three months’ imprisonment in default of payment
The case arose when a police team led by ASI Joginder Singh intercepted the appellant near Samravan bus stand while patrolling toward village Daduwal. The appellant was found carrying a bulky bag on a scooter and allegedly attempted to turn back upon noticing the police. Suspicious of his conduct, he was apprehended, and a bag containing 25 kilograms of poppy husk was seized in the presence of a Deputy Superintendent of Police. A 250-gram sample was taken from the seized substance and later sent to the chemical examiner. Upon confirmation, the FIR under Section 15 of the NDPS Act was formally registered.
During the trial, the prosecution relied entirely on the testimonies of official witnesses. Although one independent witness, Ravinder Singh, was joined in the investigation, he was not examined during trial. The defence contended that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Specifically, it argued that reliance solely on official witnesses without corroboration was inadequate, the delay of 26 days in sending the sample to the chemical examiner compromised the chain of custody, and mandatory procedural safeguards under the NDPS Act had not been followed.
The learned amicus curiae also pointed out that although the sentence imposed was for a total of one year and nine months (including the sentence in default of fine), the appellant had already spent two years, three months, and twenty-nine days in custody. The appellant’s prolonged detention beyond the sentence duration was attributed to lack of legal support and financial means.
In opposition, the State submitted that the appellant had previous convictions and was a habitual offender. The State argued that the conviction was based on a well-reasoned judgment supported by the evidence presented during trial. Furthermore, it cited judgments from previous cases involving the appellant to argue against leniency. However, it was unable to justify the extended period of custody served by the appellant beyond the sentence awarded.
The record showed that the custody certificate established actual incarceration of over two years, in contrast to a sentence that warranted a maximum of one year and nine months. The Court noted this discrepancy while affirming the conviction.
The Court stated in its analysis: “The contraband was recovered from a bag being carried by the appellant and no instance of personal search has been recorded. As such there was no need to issue notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act.” It referred to State of Rajasthan vs. Parmanand and another (2014) 5 SCC 345 to support this conclusion.
Addressing the prosecution’s reliance on official witnesses, the Court noted: “Non-examination of the said independent witness can create a dent in the prosecution case but if the chain of events has been adequately proved, it would not prove to be fatal.” It found no evidence of tampering, as “the samples had their seals intact when they arrived at the office of the Chemical Examiner.”
Regarding the extended custody, the Court recorded: “The appellant has spent 02 years, 03 months and 29 days in custody, while he was only sentenced to 01 year and 06 months of imprisonment in the instant case.” Even including the default sentence, the appellant should not have been held beyond one year and nine months.
The Court further observed: “The law must be blind to wealth or status and, in line with the constitutional spirit, treat all individuals equally.” Citing Hussainara Khatoon vs. Home Secretary, State of Bihar (1980) SCC 98, the Court noted: “If the appellant had been in a better financial position, he or his family could have easily afforded legal representation to keep a tab on his detention and secure a timely release.”
Citing Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI (2022) 10 SCC 51, the Court recorded: “Jails in India are flooded with undertrial prisoners. The statistics placed before us would indicate that more than 2/3rd of the inmates of the prisons constitute undertrial prisoners.”
Further relying on Rudul Shah vs. State of Bihar and another (1983) 4 SCC 141, the Court quoted: “The right to compensation is some palliative for the unlawful acts of instrumentalities which act in the name of public interest and which present for their protection the powers of the State as a shield.”
The Court stated that extended incarceration without judicial sanction “amounts to a disregard for the authority of the Court and the rule of law.” It concluded that “State-inflicted injustice, such as unlawfully extending a person’s custody beyond the sentence imposed by a competent Court, is a serious breach that cannot be condoned under any circumstances.”
The Court issued the following directives:
“The present appeal is dismissed being bereft of any merit. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.”
Additionally, it ordered: “The appellant is awarded Rs. 3,00,000/- (Three Lakh rupees) as compensation. The same is to be paid by the concerned State government within eight weeks of receiving a certified copy of this order and file a compliance report in the Registry of this Court within four weeks thereafter.”
The Bench further directed: “The State shall be at liberty to recover the amount awarded as compensation from the erring officials.”
It clarified: “The award of compensation by this Court shall not prohibit the appellant from pursuing civil remedies available to him to recover damages incurred.”
Lastly, the Court directed the following: “The High Court Legal Services Authority is directed to pay remuneration to learned Amicus Curiae as per rules.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Ms. Vasudha Sharma, Advocate (Amicus Curiae)
For the Respondents: Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG, Punjab
Case Title: Satnam Singh Vs. The State of Punjab
Neutral Citation: 2025:PHHC:033642
Case Number: CRA-S-299-SB-2007
Bench: Justice Harpreet Singh Brar
[Read/Download order]
