Daljit Singh v. State Of Punjab

214 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-S-830-SB-2010 Date of Decision: April 21, 2025 Daljit Singh ... Appellant

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Ms. Navkiran Bajwa, Advocate for Mr. A.P.S. Shergill, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Rajeev K. Takkar, DAG, Punjab.

DEEPAK GUPTA , J.(Oral) Appellant - Daljit Singh was tried by learned Judge, Special Court, Ferozepur, in a case arising out of FIR No.70 dated 31.08.2002, under Sec3on 18 of the NDPS Act registered at Police Sta3on City Jalalabad, as he was found in possession of 250 grams of opium. A6er trial, the appellant was convicted under Sec3on 18 of the NDPS Act vide judgment dated 28.01.2010 by the trial Court and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of ₹10,000/- with default sentence of 02 months rigorous imprisonment in case of nonpayment 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. 4.

Learned counsel points out that offence pertains to the year 2004; that appellant was young person of 31/32 years at that 3me; that appellant has already undergone actual sentence of 01 year 10 days and is not involved in any other case 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.

Sarita Rani 2025.04.22 10:45 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order

CRA-S-830-SB-2010 - 2 - 2025:PHHC:050847 6.

The custody cer3ficate placed on record by the respondentState would reveal that appellant has already undergone actual custody sentence of 01 year and 10 days. It is revealed further that he has no criminal antecedents. Nothing has been brought on record to suggest that a6er this convic3on, appellant has been involved in any other case. He was young person of 31/32 years of age at the 3me of offence, which had taken place way back in 2002 i.e. 23 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 the 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) sarita JUDGE Whether reasoned/speaking:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No Sarita Rani 2025.04.22 10:45 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order