Jagtar Singh v. State Of Punjab

S. No.202

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH **** CRA-S-706-SB of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision:04.04.2025 Jagtar Singh .....Appellant Vs.

State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Gurvinder Pal Singh, Advocate for Mr. H.S. Rakhra, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Rajiv K. Takkar, DAG, Punjab.

**** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (Oral) Appellant- Jagtar Singh was tried by Ld. Special Judge, Mansa in a case arising out of FIR No.135 dated 02.06.2004 under Sec3on 15 of the NDPS Act registered at Police Sta3on Sadar Mansa, as he was found in possession of 20 Kg of poppy husk. A4er trial, the appellant was convicted under Sec3on 15 of the NDPS Act vide judgment dated 02.03.2009 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 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.

RENU 2025.04.04 18:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CRA-S-706-SB of 2009 (O&M) -24.

Learned counsel points out that offence pertains to the year 2004; that appellant was of 26 years at that 3me; that appellant had already undergone total sentence of 03 months and 26 days 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.

6.

The custody cer3ficate placed on record by the respondent-State would reveal that appellant had already undergone total sentence of 03 months and 26 days. It is revealed further that appellant is involved in one more case i.e. FIR No.130 dated 07.08.2013 registered under Sec3on 15 (Act No.61 of 1985) of the NDPS Act at Police Sta3on Raman, Bathinda but he is on bail in that case. The appellant was of 26 years of age at the 3me of offence, which had taken place way back in 2004 i.e. 21 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.

Disposed of.

April 04, 2025 ( DEEPAK GUPTA ) renu JUDGE Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No RENU 2025.04.04 18:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh