Partly allowed¶26

Kulbir Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC14 Jul 2026CRA-S/1753/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Punjab & Haryana High Court; CRA-S-1753-SB-2005(O&M); Kulbir Singh v. State of Punjab; Section 15 NDPS Act; poppy husk 2 kg; FIR No.36; conviction confirmed; sentence reduced to period already undergone; fine Rs.2,000 maintained; protracted criminal proceedings; no previous conviction; custody certificate; Ramesh Chander Dimri J.; decided 14.07.2026.

What did the court decide?

Appeal partly allowed: conviction confirmed, sentence reduced to the period already undergone, fine of Rs.2,000/- maintained; all interim applications disposed of. ¶26

Kulbir Singh Vs State of Punjab — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

¶1

CRA-S-1753-SB-2005(O&M) # 1#

¶2

Date of Decision:-14.07.2026

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH .

¶4

115

¶5

CRA-S-1753-SB-2005(O&M)

Kulbir Singh .

......Appellant.

Vs.

State of Punjab .

¶10

......Respondent.

¶11

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHANDER DIMRI

¶12

Present:Mr. Sukhcharan Singh Gill, Advocate Legal Aid Counsel for the Appellant.

¶13

Mr. Amandeep Singh Samra, AAG Punjab.

¶14

¶15

RAMESH CHANDER DIMRI, J. (ORAL )

¶16

The appellant was found in possession of 2Kgs of Poppy Husk in the area of Police Station Sri Hargobindpur in district Gurdaspur on 14.03.2004. Such recovery led to the registration of FIR No.36 dated 14.03.2024 under Section 15 of the NDPS Act at the above stated police station as well as arrest of the appellant. On conclusion of investigation, challan was filed against him. He faced the trial arising out of the said FIR and through a judgment of conviction dated 20.09.2005 was convicted under the said section. Resultantly, he was sentenced to imprisonment of RI for one year with a fine of Rs.2,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was directed to further undergo RI for 03 months.

¶17

Aggrieved of the same, the appellant filed the present appeal.

¶18

VINAY MAHAJAN 2026.07.14 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

CRA-S-1753-SB-2005(O&M) # 2#

¶20

His sentence was suspended by this Court vide order dated 08.11.2005. Since then he is stated to be on bail.

¶21

Learned Counsel for the appellant has made a statement at Bar that he has been instructed by the appellant to make a statement that the appellant does not challenge the impugned judgment of conviction on merits but leniency may be shown to the appellant in the imposition of sentence. He also states that out of the imprisonment of one year, the appellant has already undergone 02 months and 16 days of actual custody and 03 months and 07 days with remission.

¶22

Per contra, Learned State Counsel has opposed his argument but has filed the custody certificate of the appellant which shows that the appellant has already undergone a period of 03 months and 07 in custody including remission. Same be scanned and placed at appropriate place.

¶23

The occurrence in question is stated to have taken place on 14.03.2004. At the time of passing the judgment by the concerned Special Judge, the appellant Kulbir Singh was aged 26 years. A period of more than 22 years has elapsed since the date of occurrence. The appellant has already undergone protracted criminal proceedings. Custody certificate filed today shows that he has no other case registered against him. No previous conviction is shown to have been recorded against him. In view thereof, I find the present matter to be a fit one for reducing the sentence imposed on the appellant to the period already undergone by him. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction is confirmed but the sentence imposed on the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him in the present case. The sentence of payment of fine is maintained.

¶24

VINAY MAHAJAN 2026.07.14 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶25

CRA-S-1753-SB-2005(O&M) # 3#

¶26