Rajinder Singh @ Bittu vs State Of Punjab
2024 Latest Caselaw 19944 P&H

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

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:148488

CRA-S-3739-SB of 2015 (O&M)

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