Gurmail Singh Vs State of Punjab — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

Gurmail Singh Vs State of Punjab — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Conviction maintained; order of sentence modified to imprisonment for the period already undergone (07 months and 25 days); fine of Rs.5,000/-, if not paid earlier, to be deposited before the Chief Judicial Magistrate within four weeks, failing which the complete original sentence is to be carried out; appeal disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 02 years and fine imposed on the appellant under Section 15(b) of the NDPS Act deserves to be reduced to the period already undergone (07 months and 25 days), considering that the offence pertains to the year 2004, the appellant was a young person of 25 years at that time, and he is not involved in any other case.

Court's answer

In the facts and circumstances (offence of 2004, i.e. 21 years back; appellant a young boy of 25 years at the time; 07 months and 25 days custody already undergone; no criminal antecedents and no involvement in any other case after conviction), it will be in the interest of justice to reduce the period of imprisonment to the period already undergone instead of sending the appellant behind bars in the company of hardened criminals.

Ratio / Principle

The appeal is partly accepted: the impugned judgment against conviction is maintained, while the order of sentence passed by the trial Court is modified and the appellant is sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by him.

Key takeaways

The amount of fine, if not paid earlier, shall be deposited before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned within four weeks, failing which the appellant will have to carry out the complete sentence as imposed by the trial Court.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Appeal – NDPS Act – Sentence reduction – Appellant convicted under Section 15(b) of the NDPS Act by Special Court, Moga (judgment dated 05.05.2009) for possession of 40 Kg poppy straw arising out of FIR No.26 dated 13.05.2004, PS Badhni Kalan; sentenced to 02 years' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/- (default 02 months RI) – On appeal, challenge to conviction not pressed; prayer confined to sentence – Custody certificate showed actual custody of 07 months and 25 days undergone, no criminal antecedents and no involvement in any other case after conviction; appellant was 25 years old when offence occurred 21 years earlier – Held, in the interest of justice, imprisonment reduced to period already undergone instead of sending appellant behind bars with hardened criminals; conviction maintained; fine, if unpaid, to be deposited before Chief Judicial Magistrate within four weeks, failing which complete sentence as imposed by trial Court to be carried out – Appeal partly accepted and disposed of.

202 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRA-S-1358-SB-2009 Date of Decision: April 22, 2025

Gurmail Singh … Appellant

Versus

State of Punjab …Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

Present: - Mr. N.S. Dandiwal, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Rajeev K. Takkar, DAG, Punjab.

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.(Oral)

Appellant – Gurmail Singh was tried by learned Judge, Special Court, Moga in a case arising out of FIR No.26 dated 13.05.2004 under Sec�ons 15 and 25 of the NDPS Act registered at Police Sta�on Badhni Kalan, as he was found in possession of 40 Kg of poppy straw. A�er trial, the appellant was convicted under Sec�on 15(b) of the NDPS Act vide judgment dated 05.05.2009 by the trial Court and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 02 years and to pay fine of ₹5,000/- with default sentence of 02 months rigorous imprisonment in case of nonpayment of fine.

Against the abovesaid convic�on and sentence, this appeal was filed.

Today learned counsel for the appellant stated at the outset that appellant does not press the appeal against the judgment of convic�on; and that appellant confines his prayer only against order of sentence. It is submi�ed that appellant would be sa�sfied, in case he is sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by him.

Learned counsel points out that offence pertains to the year 2004; that appellant was young person of 25 years at that �me; that appellant has already undergone actual sentence of 07 months and 25 days and is not involved in any other case and so, he deserves to be sentenced for the period already undergone by him.

Learned State counsel has not seriously objected to the aforesaid prayer.

Sarita Rani 2025.04.22 17:27 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order

CRA-S-1358-SB-2009

2025:PHHC:051436

- 2 -

The custody cer�ficate placed on record by the respondentState would reveal that appellant has already undergone actual custody sentence of 07 months and 25 days. It is revealed further that he has no criminal antecedents. Nothing has been brought on record to suggest that a�er this convic�on, appellant has been involved in any other case. He was young boy of 25 years of age at the �me of offence, which had taken place way back in 2004 i.e. 21 years back.

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it will be in the interest of jus�ce, 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.

Consequently, the present appeal is partly accepted. By maintaining the impugned judgment against convic�on, 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.

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 22, 2025 (DEEPAK GUPTA) sarita JUDGE Whether reasoned/speaking: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

Sarita Rani 2025.04.22 17:27 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order