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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Sentence modified to imprisonment for the period already undergone (conviction maintained); fine, if not paid earlier, to be deposited before the Chief Judicial Magistrate within four weeks, failing which the complete sentence as imposed by the trial Court revives.

Issue for consideration

Whether the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of ₹20,000/- imposed on the appellant should be reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him, the appeal against conviction having been given up.

Ratio / Principle

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

Key takeaways

As per the custody certificate placed on record by the respondent-State, the appellant had already undergone actual custody sentence of 09 months and 01 day and has no criminal antecedents; nothing on record suggests his involvement in any other case after this conviction.ratio¶19
The appellant was a young boy of 21 years of age at the time of the offence, which had taken place way back in 2006 i.e. 19 years back; therefore, in the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it will be in the interest of justice to reduce the period of imprisonment to the period already undergone instead of sending him behind bars in the company of hardened criminals.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRA-S-708-SB-2009 (Deepak Gupta, J.; decided 16.07.2025): In an appeal arising out of FIR No.423 dated 24.12.2006, PS Baghapurana (2 Kg. 400 gm. opium), where the appellant stood convicted under Section 18(c) of the NDPS Act by the Special Court, Moga (judgment dated 03.03.2009) and sentenced by order dated 06.03.2009 to rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of ₹20,000/- with default sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment, the appellant gave up the challenge to conviction and confined his prayer to reduction of sentence to the period already undergone. Relying on the custody certificate showing actual custody of 09 months and 01 day, absence of criminal antecedents, and the appellant's young age of 21 years at the time of the 2006 offence (19 years earlier), the Court held that reducing the imprisonment to the period already undergone, rather than sending him behind bars with hardened criminals, would be in the interest of justice. Appeal partly accepted: conviction maintained, sentence modified to the period already undergone; any unpaid fine to be deposited before the Chief Judicial Magistrate within four weeks, failing which the complete trial-Court sentence revives.

203 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRA-S-708-SB-2009 Date of Decision: July 16, 2025

Gurjit Singh … Appellant

Versus

The State of Punjab …Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

Present: - Mr. Ankit Bhinchar, Advocate for Mr. S.P.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the appellant.

Ms. Pra bha Bali, AAG, Punjab.

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.(Oral)

Appellant - Gurjit Singh was tried by learned Judge, Special Court, Moga in a case arising out of FIR No.423 dated 24.12.2006, under Sec on 18 of the NDPS Act, registered at Police Sta on Baghapurana, as he was found in possession of 2 Kg. 400 gm. of opium. A4er trial, the appellant was convicted under Sec on 18(c) of the NDPS Act vide judgment dated 03.03.2009 by the trial Court. Vide a separate order dated 06.03.2009, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay fine of ₹20,000/- with default sentence of 01 year rigorous imprisonment in case of non-payment 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 Sarita Rani2006; that appellant was a young person of 21 years at that me; that 2025.07.16 16:36 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order

CRA-S-708-SB-2009

- 2 -

2025:PHHC:086189

appellant has already undergone actual sentence of 09 months 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.

Learned State counsel has seriously objected to the aforesaid prayer.

However, the custody cer ficate placed on record by the respondent-State would reveal that appellant has already undergone actual custody sentence of 09 months and 01 day. It is revealed further that he has no criminal antecedents. Nothing has been brought on record to suggest that a4er this convic on, appellant has been involved in any other case. He was young boy of 21 years of age at the me of offence, which had taken place way back in 2006 i.e. 19 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.

July 16, 2025		(DEEPAK GUPTA)
sarita		JUDGE
	Whether reasoned/speaking:	Yes/No
	Whether reportable:	Yes/No

Sarita Rani 2025.07.16 16:36 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order