CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Jodh Raj and Another vs State of Punjab

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 7 February 2005 · Citation: (2005) 13 CriminalCC 26

HON’BLE JUDGES
Baldev Singh, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS) — Section 15
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3998 of 2005 and Criminal Appeal No. 2273-SB of 2004
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 188 words

Baldev Singh, J.—Appeal admitted.

I have heard Ld.counsel for the applicant-appellants and Deputy Advocate General, Punjab on suspension of sentence of imprisonment during the pendency of the appeal.

2.

The applicant-applicants Jodh Raj and Raj Kumar have been sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.1 lac and in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for 2 years u/s 15 of the NDPS Act.

3.

Referring to the impugned judgment, it has been argued by the Ld. counsel for the appellants that there was violation of Sections 42 and 50 of the Act. Independent witness was not examined. Link evidence is also missing and conscious possession of the appellants is not proved. Both the appellants have undergone incarceration for 2 years and 3 months. Recovery of fine has already been stayed.

4.

I will take a long time to decide the appeal. So the sentence of imprisonment of the applicant-appellants Jodh Raj and Raj Kumar is suspended during the pendency of the appeal, subject to their furnishing bail bounds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Kapurthala.