Gurbachan Singh v. State Of Punjab
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRA-S-1592-SB-2009 (O&M) Dae of Decision: 12.03.2025 GURBACHAN SINGH . . . .APPELLANT Vs.
STATE OF PUNJAB . . . . RESPONDENT
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by:- Mr.Arnav Ghai, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.B.S. Bali, Addl. A.G., Punjab.
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
Appellant Gurbachan Singh was tried by Ld. Special Judge, Ferozepur in a case arising out of FIR No.105 dated 21.08.2006 under Sec4on 15 of the Narco4c Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [for short 'the NDPS Act'] registered at Police Sta4on Khui Khera, as he was found in possession of 4 Kg of poppy husk. A=er trial, the appellant was convicted under Sec4on 15 of the NDPS Act vide judgment dated 03.03.2009 by the trial Court and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of ₹5,000/- with default sentence of 01 month rigorous imprisonment in case of non-payment of fine. 2.
Against the abovesaid convic4on 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 convic4on; and that appellant confines his prayer only against order of sentence. It is submiDed that appellant would be sa4sfied, in case he is sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by him. PRIYANKA 2025.03.12 18:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRA-S-1592-SB-2009 (O&M) -24.
Learned counsel points out that offence pertains to the year 2006 that appellant was young person of 28 years at that 4me; that appellant has already undergone actual sentence of 05 months and 22 days and is involved in one more case in which he is on bail, 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 cer4ficate placed on record by the respondent-State would reveal that appellant has already undergone actual custody sentence of 05 months and 22 days. It is revealed further that he is involved in one more case in which he is on bail. Nothing has been brought on record to suggest that a=er this convic4on, appellant has been involved in any other case. He was young boy of 28 years of age at the 4me of offence, which had taken place way back in 2006 i.e. 18 years back. 7.
In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it will be in the interest of jus4ce, 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 convic4on, 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 the same.
Disposed of.
12.03.2025 (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned?
Yes Whether reportable?
No PRIYANKA 2025.03.12 18:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document