Gurdas Mal v. State Of Punjab

201 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-S-156-SB-2009 Date of Decision: April 01, 2025 Gurdas Mal ... Appellant

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. P.P.S. Duggal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Rajeev K. Takkar, DAG, Punjab.

DEEPAK GUPTA , J.(Oral) Appellant Gurdas Mal was tried by learned Judge, Special Court, Ferozepur in a case arising out of FIR No.63 dated 23.04.2003, under Sec0on 18 of the NDPS Act registered at Police Sta0on Guruharsahai, as he was found in possession of 01 Kg of opium. A4er trial, the appellant was convicted under Sec0on 18 of the NDPS Act vide judgment dated 17.01.2009 by the trial Court and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of ₹5,000/- with default sentence of 02 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. 4.

Learned counsel points out that offence pertains to the year 2003; that appellant was young person of 35 years at that 0me; that appellant has already undergone actual sentence of 01 month and 27 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.

Sarita Rani 2025.04.01 17:38 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order

CRA-S-156-SB-2009 - 2 - 2025:PHHC:043686 6.

The custody cer0ficate placed on record by the respondentState would reveal that appellant has already undergone actual custody sentence of 01 month and 27 days. It is revealed further that he has no criminal antecedents. Nothing has been brought on record to suggest that a4er this convic0on, appellant has been involved in any other case. He was young man of 35 years of age at the 0me of offence, which had taken place way back in 2003 i.e. 22 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. As far as the fine is concerned, it will remain same. Disposed of.

April 01, 2025 (DEEPAK GUPTA) sarita JUDGE Whether reasoned/speaking:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No Sarita Rani 2025.04.01 17:38 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order