Malkiat Singh v. State Of Punjab

S. No.208

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH **** CRA-S-2314-SB of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision:21.04.2025 Malkiat Singh .....Appellant Vs.

State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Rajiv K. Takkar, DAG, Punjab.

**** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (Oral) Appellant- Malkiat Singh was tried by Ld. Special Court, Barnala in a case arising out of FIR No.18 dated 13.02.2006 under Sec3on 18 of the NDPS Act registered at Police Sta3on Tapa, as he was found in possession of 250 grams of opium. A5er trial, the appellant was convicted under Sec3on 18 of the NDPS Act vide judgment dated 18.09.2009 by the trial Court and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of ₹2,000/- with default sentence of 02 months rigorous imprisonment in case of non-payment 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 do not press the appeal against the judgment of convic3on; and that appellant confine 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 of 32 years at that 3me; that appellant had already undergone RENU 2025.04.22 14:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CRA-S-2314-SB-2009 (O&M) -2total sentence of 03 months and 12 days and so, he deserve to be sentenced for the period already undergone by him.

5.

Learned State Counsel has not seriously objected to the aforesaid prayer.

6.

The custody cer3ficate placed on record by the respondent-State would reveal that appellant had already undergone total sentence of 03 months and 12 days. It is revealed further that appellanthas no criminal antecedents. He was 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 fine is concerned, it will remain same.

9.

However, it is made clear that amount of fine, if not paid earlier, shall be deposited before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned, within a period of four weeks from today, failing which the appellant will have to carry out the complete sentence as imposed by the trial Court. Disposed of.

April 21, 2025 ( DEEPAK GUPTA ) renu JUDGE Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No RENU 2025.04.22 14:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh