Binder Singh And ORS. v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH **** Date of Decision.:25.04.2025 Binder Singh and Others .....Appellants Vs.

State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Gaurav Kumar, Advocate for Mr. P.S. Sekhon, Advocate for appellant No.1.

Mr. Lal Singh Sandhu, Advocate for appellant Nos.2 and 3.

Mr. R.K.S. Brar, Addl. AG, Haryana.

**** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Out of the three appellants, one of them namely Balwant Singh has already expired.

2.

Learned State counsel does not dispute the said fact. 3.

As such, the present appeal qua appellant Balwant Singh stands abated.

4.

Appellants Binder Singh and Darshan Singh were tried by learned Sessions Judge, Sirsa in a case arising out of FIR No.169 dated 26.12.2006 under Sec5on 17/18 of Narco5c Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act registered at Police Sta5on Rori. A9er trial, the appellants Binder Singh and Darshan Singh were convicted under Sec5ons 18 of Narco5c Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act vide judgment dated 07.04.2009 by the trial Court and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each and to pay fine of ₹10,000/-

each with default sentence of 03 months rigorous imprisonment in case of non-payment of fine vide a separate order dated 15.04.2009. 4.

Against the abovesaid convic5on and sentence, this appeal was filed.

6.

Today learned counsel for the pe55oner stated at the outset that appellants does not press the appeal against the judgment of convic5on; and that appellants confines their prayer only against order of sentence. It is submi@ed that appellants would be sa5sfied, in case they are sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by them. 7.

Learned counsel points out that offence pertains to the year 2006; that appellant Binder Singh was young person of 25 years at that 5me and appellant Darshan Singh was of 37 years of age at that 5me; that appellant Binder Singh has already undergone actual sentence of 02 months and 25 days and is not involved in any other case; appellant Darshan Singh has already undergone actual sentence of 02 months and 21 days and is not involved in another case and so, they deserves to be sentenced for the period already undergone by them. 8.

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

9.

The custody cer5ficate placed on record by the respondentState would reveal that appellant Binder Singh has already undergone actual sentence of 02 months and 25 days and appellant Darshan Singh has already undergone actual sentence of 02 months and 21 days. It is revealed further that they have no criminal antecedents. Nothing has been brought on record to suggest that a9er their convic5on, appellants have been involved in any other case. They were 25 and 37 years of age respec5vely at the 5me of offence, which had taken place way back in 2006 i.e. 19 years back.

10.

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it will be in the interest of jus5ce, if the period of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellants, instead of sending them behind bars in the company of hardened criminals.

11.

Consequently, the present appeal is partly accepted. By maintaining the impugned judgment against convic5on, the order of sentence as passed by the trial Court is modified and the appellants Binder Singh and Darshan Singh are sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by them.

12.

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 appellants will have to carry out the complete sentence as imposed by the trial Court.

Disposed of.

( DEEPAK GUPTA ) JUDGE April 25, 2025 Nee5ka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No