Vijay Singh And ANR. v. State Of Punjab

S. No.213

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRA-S-725-SB of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision:21.04.2025 Vijay Singh and another .....Appellants Vs.

State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Supneet Singh, Advocate for Mr. P.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Rajiv K. Takkar, DAG, Punjab.

**** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (Oral) Appellants- Vijay Singh and Lali Singh were tried by Ld. Special Court, Barnala in a case arising out of FIR No.57 dated 28.02.2009 under Sec3on 15 of the NDPS Act registered at Police Sta3on City Barnala, as they were found in joint possession of 10 Kg of poppy husk. A5er trial, the appellants were convicted under Sec3on 15 of the NDPS Act vide judgment dated 13.03.2010 by the trial Court and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four months each and to pay fine of ₹250/- each with default sentence of 15 days rigorous imprisonment each in case of non-payment of fine. 2.

Against the abovesaid convic3on and sentence, this appeal was filed. 3.

Today learned counsel for the appellants stated at the outset that appellants do not press the appeal against the judgment of convic3on; and that appellants confine their prayer only against order of sentence. It is submi;ed that appellants would be sa3sfied, in case they are sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by them.

4.

Learned counsel points out that offence pertains to the year 2009; that appellants - Vijay Singh and Lali Singh were of 27 and 19 years respec3vely at that 3me; that appellants had already undergone total sentence of 02 months RENU 2025.04.22 13:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CRA-S-725-SB of 2010 -2and 10 days and 02 months and 19 days respec3vely and so, they deserve to be sentenced for the period already undergone by them. 5.

Learned State Counsel has not seriously objected to aforesaid prayer. 6.

The custody cer3ficate placed on record by the respondent-State would reveal that appellants- Vijay Singh and Lali Singh had already undergone total sentence of 02 months and 10 days and 02 months and 19 days respec3vely. It is revealed further that appellant- Vijay Singh is involved in three more cases whereas appellant - Lali Singh is involved in two more cases out of which he is on bail in one case and was acqui;ed in the other case. They were of 27 and 19 years of age respec3vely at the 3me of offence, which had taken place way back in 2009 i.e. 16 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 appellants, instead of sending them 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 appellants are sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by them. 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