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. 2. Against the abovesaid convic on and sentence, this appeal was filed. 3. 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. 4. Learned counsel points out that offence pertains to the year 2006; that appellant was a young person of 21 years at that me; that Sarita Rani 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. 5. Learned State counsel has seriously objected to the aforesaid prayer. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. 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