SATYAWAN @ SATYABAN vs STATE OF HARYANA — CRA-D/445/2026

Disposed: --DISPOSED OF on 15th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010467522026

Filing Number

CRA-D/20045/2026

Filing Date

18-Mar-2026

Registration No

CRA-D/445/2026

Registration Date

20-Mar-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara , Mrs. Justice Sukhvinder Kaur

Coram

Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara , Mrs. Justice Sukhvinder Kaur

Category

17.12 - NDPS U/S 15/18/20 ( 198 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

15-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISPOSED OF

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SATYAWAN @ SATYABAN

    Adv. SANDEEP KOTLA

  2. 2.STATE OF HARYANA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF HARYANA

  2. 2.STATE OF HARYANA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 15-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara,mrs. Justice Sukhvinder KaurView PDF

    Summary of CRA-D/445/2026 The High Court of Punjab and Haryana found patent illegality in the trial court's conviction and sentencing of Satyawan under Section 18(b) of the NDPS Act for possessing 152 opium poppy plants (11.56 kg). The court held that poppy plant cultivation falls under Section 18(c), not 18(b), as government notifications exclude cultivation offenses from commercial quantity classifications—making the maximum sentence 10 years, not 20 years. The appeal was allowed; the conviction reasoning stands but the case was remanded to the trial court for proper legal classification and re-sentencing, with the appellant's sentence suspended pending rehearing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 18-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRA-D/445/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of CRA-D/445/2026 The High Court of Punjab and Haryana found patent illegality in the trial court's conviction and sentencing of Satyawan under Section 18(b) of the NDPS Act for possessing 152 opium poppy plants (11.56 kg). The court held that poppy plant cultivation falls under Section 18(c), not 18(b), as government notifications exclude cultivation offenses from commercial quantity classifications—making the maximum sentence 10 years, not 20 years. The appeal was allowed; the conviction reasoning stands but the case was remanded to the trial court for proper legal classification and re-sentencing, with the appellant's sentence suspended pending rehearing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case