Dismissed

Meeta Singh @ Manjit Singh v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Apr 2014CRA-S/2191/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal by appellant convicted under NDPS Act for possession of opium. High Court affirmed conviction but modified sentence, reducing imprisonment to period already served and fine to ₹20,000, due to age and custody time.

What did the court decide?

Sentence modified; substantive term reduced to time spent in custody; fine reduced to ₹20,000; alternate imprisonment for default reduced to three months.

Meeta Singh @ Manjit Singh Vs State of Haryana — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

�� 

��

��

��!��"��#�$#��$

Meeta Singh alias Manjit Singh

..Appellant

Versus

State of Haryana

..Respondent

Coram: ��%�&��'�#�(��!��'��)��#��

¶11

Present: Mr. V.S.Rana, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Rajat Mor, DAG,Haryana for the respondent#State.

¶12

1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

¶13

To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes

¶14

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes

¶15

'��)��#��(#*+��&,

¶16

The appellant, who has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of � 1,50,000/# and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for six months under Section 31 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985( for short,''NDPS Act”) for possession of opium weighing 90 grams vide judgment of conviction dated 15.6.2009 and order of sentence dated 24.7.2009 by the Court of Judge, Special Court, Sirsa(for short,'trial Court') in

¶17

Kant Nirmal 2014.04.03 16:38 I am the author of this document high court chandigarh

¶18

�

¶19

��

¶20

Sessions Case No. 91#SC of 2007. The aforesaid judgment/order are under challenge in the present appeal brought by the convict under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶21

Learned cousnel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant does not contest the findings of conviction as recorded by the learned trial Court but he prays for leniency as regards the quantum of sentence.

¶22

It is stated by the learned counsel for the appellant and is not disputed by the learned State counsel that the appellant has already spent 1 year#17 days in custody, is aged about 60 years, is the only bread winner of the family and has children of marriageable age.

¶23

In view of the circumstances, while affirming the judment of conviction, order of sentence is modified and the substantive sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period already spent by him in custody and the amount of fine is reduced from � 1,50,000/# to �. 20,000/#. In defaualt of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo further simple imprisonment for 3 months.

¶24

With the aforesaid modification in the order of sentence,

¶25

the appeal fails and is dismissed.

¶26

April 02,2014 (MAHAVIR S.CHAUHAN) nk JUDGE

¶27

Kant Nirmal 2014.04.03 16:38 I am the author of this document high court chandigarh

Meeta Singh @ Manjit Singh v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meeta Singh @ Manjit Singh v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Wailash Bhatti Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Sukhwant Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Gurinder Kaur Arora Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Hardev Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Baljit Kaur Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Harpreet Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Others