Partly allowed¶21

Bachittar Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC21 Apr 2025CRA-S/1364/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NDPS Act Section 18 opium (1 kg 500 g) conviction; sentence reduced to period already undergone (06 months 28 days) on appellant's concession of conviction; fine Rs. 30,000/- retained with four-week deposit condition failing which full sentence revives; Punjab & Haryana High Court, CRA-S-1364-SB of 2009 (O&M), Deepak Gupta J. (Oral), decided 21.04.2025; appeal partly accepted and disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Imprisonment reduced to the period already undergone (06 months and 28 days); conviction-maintaining judgment upheld; fine of Rs. 30,000/- retained, to be deposited within four weeks if unpaid, failing which the complete original sentence is to be carried out. ¶21

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether, the appellant having conceded the conviction and confined his prayer to the order of sentence, the custodial sentence (five years' imprisonment plus Rs. 30,000/- fine) should be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶13

Court's answer

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances (offence 20 years old, appellant aged 57 at the time, no criminal antecedents, 06 months and 28 days already undergone), it will be in the interest of justice to reduce the period of imprisonment to the period already undergone, instead of sending the appellant back behind bars.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

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

¶21

Key takeaways

As far as the fine is concerned, it will remain the same.ratio¶21
If the fine was not paid earlier, it shall be deposited before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned within four weeks from the date of the decision, failing which the appellant will have to carry out the complete sentence as imposed by the trial Court.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRA-S-1364-SB of 2009 (O&M), High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, decided 21.04.2025 by Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral). The appellant, Bachi�r Singh, tried by the Special Court, Muktsar in FIR No.29 dated 15.02.2005 under Section 18 of the NDPS Act (Police Station Gidderbaha) for possession of 1 Kg and 500 grams of opium, was convicted under Section 18 NDPS Act vide judgment dated 22.05.2009 and sentenced to five years' imprisonment plus Rs. 30,000/- fine (default: 06 months RI). At the hearing, counsel did not press the appeal against conviction and confined the prayer to the sentence, seeking time served; State counsel raised no serious objection. The custody certificate showed 06 months and 28 days already undergone, no criminal antecedents, and age 57 at the time of the 20-year-old offence. Holding it to be in the interest of justice, the Court maintained the conviction, modified the order of sentence to imprisonment for the period already undergone, and partly accepted the appeal. The fine was left unchanged; if unpaid, it must be deposited with the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate within four weeks, failing which the complete original sentence is to be carried out. Disposed of.

¶1

S. No.205

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

********

¶4

CRA-S-1364-SB of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision:21.04.2025

¶5

Bachi�ar Singh .....Appellant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

State of Punjab .....Respondent

¶8

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

¶9

Present:Mr. R.K. Girdhar, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Rajiv K. Takkar, DAG, Punjab.

¶10

¶11

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (Oral)

¶12

Appellant- Bachi�ar Singh was tried by Ld. Special Court, Muktsar in a case arising out of FIR No.29 dated 15.02.2005 under Sec�on 18 of the NDPS Act registered at Police Sta�on Gidderbaha, as he was found in possession of 1 Kg and 500 grams of opium. A�er trial, the appellant was convicted under Sec�on 18 of the NDPS Act vide judgment dated 22.05.2009 by the trial Court and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay fine of ₹30,000/- with default sentence of 06 months rigorous imprisonment in case of non-payment of fine.

¶13

Against the abovesaid convic�on and sentence, this appeal was filed. 3. Today learned counsel for the appellant stated at the outset that appellant do not press the appeal against the judgment of convic�on; and that appellant confine 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.

¶14

Learned counsel points out that offence pertains to the year 2005; that appellant was of 57 years at that �me; that appellant had already undergone

¶15

RENU 2025.04.22 13:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶16

CRA-S-1364-SB of 2009 -2-

¶17

total sentence of 06 months and 28 days and so, he deserve to be sentenced for the period already undergone by him.

¶18

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

¶19

The custody cer�ficate placed on record by the respondent-State would reveal that appellant had already undergone total sentence of 06 months and 28 days. It is revealed further that appellant- Bachi�ar Singh has no criminal antecedents. He was of 57 years of age at the �me of offence, which had taken place way back in 2005 i.e. 20 years back.

¶20

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.

¶21

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. As far as fine is concerned, it will remain same.

¶22

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.

¶23

Disposed of.

¶24

April 21, 2025 ( DEEPAK GUPTA ) renu JUDGE Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No

¶25

RENU 2025.04.22 13:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Bachittar Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bachittar Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surjit Singh Alias Keeru Vs State of Punjab

Sourav Saini Vs State of Punjab

Jyoti and Another Vs State of Haryana and Others

Bijender Vs Babu and Anr.

Jasbir Singh Vs State of Punjab

State of Haryana and Another Vs Sudesh