Swaran Singh v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH **** CRA-S-1214-SB-2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 20.03.2025 Swaran Singh .....Appellant Vs.

State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Jagjit Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Rajiv K. Takkar, DAG, Punjab.

**** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Appellant Swaran Singh was tried by Ld. Special Judge, Jalandhar in a case arising out of FIR No.126 dated 10.11.2004 under Sec0on 15 of the NDPS Act registered at Police Sta0on GRP, Jalandhar, as he was found in possession of 15 Kg of poppy husk. A2er trial, the appellant was convicted under Sec0on 15 of the NDPS Act vide judgment dated 20.03.2009 by the trial Court and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of ₹1,000/- with default sentence of 03 months rigorous imprisonment in case of nonpayment of fine. 2.

Against the abovesaid convic0on 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 convic0on; and that appellant confines his prayer only against order of sentence. It is submi:ed that appellant would be sa0sfied, in case he is sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by him. PRIYANKA 2025.03.24 10:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRA-S-1214-SB-2009 (O&M) -24.

Learned counsel points out that offence pertains to the year 2004; that appellant was young person of 28 years at that 0me; that appellant has already undergone actual sentence of 04 months and 14 days 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 not seriously objected to the aforesaid prayer.

6.

The custody cer0ficate placed on record by the respondentState would reveal that appellant has already undergone actual custody sentence of 04 months and 15 days. It is revealed further that he has no criminal antecedents. Nothing has been brought on record to suggest that a2er this convic0on, appellant has been involved in any other case. He was young boy of 28 years of age at the 0me of offence, which had taken place way back in 2004 i.e. 21 years back.

7.

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it will be in the interest of jus0ce, 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 convic0on, 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. Disposed of.

March 20, 2025 ( DEEPAK GUPTA ) pry JUDGE Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No PRIYANKA 2025.03.24 10:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document