Jagtar Singh v. State Of Punjab
202-a IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-S-1018-SB of 2009 Date of Decision: April 01, 2025 Jagtar Singh alias Tari ... Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Lovish Arora, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Rajeev K. Takkar, DAG, Punjab.
DEEPAK GUPTA , J.(Oral) Appellant - Jagtar Singh @ Tari was tried by learned Judge, Special Court, Mansa in a case arising out of FIR No.161 dated 14.09.2006, under Sec3on 15 of the NDPS Act registered at Police Sta3on Sadar Mansa, as he was found in possession of 30 Kg of poppy husk. A6er trial, the appellant was convicted under Sec3on 15 of the NDPS Act vide judgment dated 21.03.2009 by the trial Court and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of ₹1,000/- with default sentence of 03 months rigorous imprisonment in case of nonpayment of fine. 2.
Against the abovesaid convic3on and sentence, this appeal was filed.
3.
Today learned counsel for the appellant stated at the outset that appellant does not press the appeal against the judgment of convic3on; and that appellant confines his prayer only against order of sentence. It is submi;ed that appellant would be sa3sfied, in case he is sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by him. 4.
Learned counsel points out that offence pertains to the year 2006; that appellant was young person of 32 years at that 3me; that appellant has already undergone actual sentence of 03 months and 02 days and is involved in one case bearing FIR No.44 dated 03.05.2006, under Sec3on 15 of the NDPS Act, but he has already been acqui;ed in that case and so, he deserves to be sentenced for the period already undergone by him.
5.
Learned State counsel has not seriously objected to the aforesaid prayer.
Sarita Rani 2025.04.01 17:43 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order
CRA-S-1018-SB of 2009 - 2 - 2025:PHHC:043696 6.
The custody cer3ficate placed on record by the respondentState would reveal that appellant has already undergone actual custody sentence of 03 months and 02 days. It is revealed further that he has no criminal antecedents. Nothing has been brought on record to suggest that a6er this convic3on, appellant has been involved in any other case. He was young man of 32 years of age at the 3me of offence, which had taken place way back in 2006 i.e. 19 years back.
7.
In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it will be in the interest of jus3ce, if the period of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant, instead of sending him behind bars in the company of hardened criminals.
8.
Consequently, the present appeal is partly accepted. By maintaining the impugned judgment against convic3on, the order of sentence as passed by the trial Court is modified and the appellant is sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by him. As far as the fine is concerned, it will remain same. Disposed of.
April 01, 2025 (DEEPAK GUPTA) sarita JUDGE Whether reasoned/speaking:
Yes/No Whether reportable:
Yes/No Sarita Rani 2025.04.01 17:43 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order