Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajinder Singh @ Bittu vs State Of Punjab on 11 November, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:148488
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
234
CRA-S-3739-SB of 2015 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 11.11.2024
Rajinder Singh @ Bittu ... Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab ... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present: Mr. Vishal Minjal, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Mr. Satjot Singh, AAG, Punjab,
for the respondent-State.
***
MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)
1. Prayer in this appeal has been made by the appellant for setting aside the order dated 04.06.2015 passed in NDPS case No.350 of 2014 arising out of FIR No.14 dated 22.03.2014 registered under Section 15 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (For short "NDPS Act") at Police Station Taragarh, Pathankot, whereby, the Special Court, Pathankot had passed order for cancellation and forfeiture of the bonds previously furnished by the present appellant for release of vehicle bearing registration No.PB-06-G-2807 on sapurdari and the abovesaid vehicle was directed to be impounded. He has further challanged the order dated 28.07.2015 whereby the impounded and confiscated vehicle 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 14-11-2024 23:44:22 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:148488 CRA-S-3739-SB of 2015 (O&M) -2- was ordered to be disposed of by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pathankot in accordance with rules and sale proceeds thereof were ordered to be deposited in the Treasury. The appellant has filed a separate appeal bearing No.CRA-S-2384-SB of 2015 against the judgment of conviction dated 12.03.2015 and the order on quantum of sentence dated 13.03.2015. Today, vide a separate order passed in the abovesaid appeal, the same has been disposed of. The appellant did not press the conviction part and restricted his claim to the sentence part. The period of custody already undergone by him is ordered to be treated as period of sentence. Since the appellant has not challenged the order of conviction in the connected appeal, therefore, learned counsel for the appellant has very fairly submitted that he does not press his claim in the present appeal whereby he has challenged the orders dated 04.06.2015 and 28.07.2015 since due to affirming of the conviction order, the prayer made by the appellant in this appeal has become infructuous.
2. As such, the present appeal is disposed of as having been unpressed.
3. Miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
(MANISHA BATRA)
11.11.2024 JUDGE
manju
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
2 of 2
::: Downloaded on - 14-11-2024 23:44:22 :::