Lakhwinder Singh v. State Of Punjab
S. No.209
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH **** CRA-S-2330-SB of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision:21.04.2025 Lakhwinder Singh .....Appellant Vs.
State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Ms. Shifa Arora, Advocate for Mr. G.S. Nahel, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Rajiv K. Takkar, DAG, Punjab.
**** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (Oral) Appellant- Lakhwinder Singh was tried by Ld. Special Court, Mansa in a case arising out of FIR No.127 dated 30.08.2005 under Sec2on 18 of the NDPS Act registered at Police Sta2on Jhunir, as he was found in possession of 500 grams of opium. A5er trial, the appellant was convicted under Sec2on 18 of the NDPS Act vide judgment dated 29.09.2009 by the trial Court and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of ₹1000/- with default sentence of 03 months rigorous imprisonment in case of non-payment of fine.
2.
Against the abovesaid convic2on 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 convic2on; and that appellant confine his prayer only against order of sentence. It is submi:ed that appellant would be sa2sfied, 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 2005; that appellant was of 25 years at that 2me; that appellant had already undergone RENU 2025.04.22 13:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
CRA-S-2330-SB of 2009 -2total sentence of 01 month and 16 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 cer2ficate placed on record by the respondent-State would reveal that appellant had already undergone total sentence of 01 month and 16 days. It is revealed further that appellant is involved in one more case i.e. FIR No.209 dated 29.12.2014 registered under Sec2ons 420/465/467/468/471/ 120-B IPC at Police Sta2on Muktsar City but he is on bail in that case. He was of 25 years of age at the 2me of offence, which had taken place way back in 2005 i.e. 20 years back.
7.
In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it will be in the interest of jus2ce, 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 convic2on, 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 13:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh