Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hardip Singh vs State Of Punjab on 1 April, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:043746
203 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRA-S-3034-SB-2009
Date of Decision: April 01, 2025
Hardip Singh ... Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
Present:- Mr. Lovish Arora, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Rajeev K. Takkar, DAG, Punjab.
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.(Oral)
Appellant- Hardip Singh was tried by learned Judge, Special
Court, Muktsar, in a case arising out of FIR No.138 of 18.08.2007 under
Sec2on 18 of the NDPS Act registered at Police Sta2on Sadar Muktsar, as he
was found in possession of 200 grams of opium. A4er trial, the appellant
was convicted under Sec2on 18 of the NDPS Act vide judgment dated
04.12.2009 by the trial Court and was sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of 09 months and to pay fine of ₹5,000/- with
default sentence of 02 months rigorous imprisonment in case of non-
payment of fine.
2. Against the abovesaid convic2on 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
convic2on; and that appellant confines his prayer only against order of
sentence. It is submi;ed that appellant would be sa2sfied, 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
2007; that appellant was young person of 23 years at that 2me; that
appellant has already undergone actual sentence of 01 month and 01 day
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.
1 of 2
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:043746
CRA-S-3034-SB-2009 -2- 2025:PHHC:043746
6. The custody cer2ficate placed on record by the respondent-
State would reveal that appellant has already undergone actual custody
sentence of 01 month and 01 day. It is revealed further that he has no
criminal antecedents. Nothing has been brought on record to suggest that
a4er this convic2on, appellant has been involved in any other case. He was
young boy of 23 years of age at the 2me 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 jus2ce, 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 convic2on, 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.
Disposed of.
April 01, 2025 (DEEPAK GUPTA)
sarita JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
2 of 2
