Malkiat Singh And ANR., v. State Of Punjab
202 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-S-803-SB-2009 Date of Decision: April 01, 2025 Malkit Singh and another ... Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Vishal R. Lamba, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Rajeev K. Takkar, DAG, Punjab.
DEEPAK GUPTA , J.(Oral) Fresh power of a'orney has been filed on behalf of the appellants.
2.
Appellants - Malkiat Singh and Paramjit Singh were tried by learned Judge, Special Court, Mansa in a case arising out of FIR No.161 dated 14.09.2006, under Sec6on 15 of the NDPS Act registered at Police Sta6on Sadar Mansa, as he was found in possession of 30 Kg of poppy husk. A9er trial, the appellants were convicted under Sec6on 15 of the NDPS Act vide judgment dated 21.03.2009 by the trial Court and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of ₹1,000/- each with default sentence of 03 months rigorous imprisonment each in case of non-payment of fine.
3.
Against the abovesaid convic6on and sentence, this appeal was filed.
4.
Today learned counsel for the appellants stated at the outset that appellants do not press the appeal against the judgment of convic6on; and that appellants confines their prayer only against order of sentence. It is submi'ed that appellants would be sa6sfied, in case they are sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by them. 5.
Learned counsel points out that offence pertains to the year 2006; that appellants were young persons at that 6me; that appellants have already undergone actual sentence of more than 02 months and are not involved in any other case and so, they deserve to be sentenced for the period already undergone by them.
Sarita Rani 2025.04.02 10:05 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order
CRA-S-803-SB-2009 - 2 - 2025:PHHC:043691 6.
Learned State counsel has not seriously objected to the aforesaid prayer.
7.
The custody cer6ficates placed on record by the respondentState would reveal that appellants have already undergone actual custody sentence of more than 02 months. It is revealed further that they have no criminal antecedents. Nothing has been brought on record to suggest that a9er this convic6on, appellants have been involved in any other case. They were young men of 27 and 35 years of age at the 6me of offence, which had taken place way back in 2006 i.e. 19 years back. 8.
In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it will be in the interest of jus6ce, if the period of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellants, instead of sending them behind bars in the company of hardened criminals.
9.
Consequently, the present appeal is partly accepted. By maintaining the impugned judgment against convic6on, the order of sentence as passed by the trial Court is modified and the appellants are sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by them. 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 2025.04.02 10:05 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order