Boota Singh v. State Of Punjab
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH **** CRA-S-1796-SB-2009 (O&M) Date of Decision:-27.03.2025 BOOTA SINGH .....Appellant Vs.
STATE OF PUNJAB ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr.Rajat, Advocate, for Mr.S.P.S. Sidhu, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. R.K. Takkar, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
**** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Appellant was tried by Ld. Special Court, Muktsar in a case arising out of FIR No.285 dated 20.11.2005 under Sec0on 15 of the NDPS Act registered at Police Sta0on City Muktsar, as he was found in possession of 10 Kg of poppy husk. A1er trial, the appellant was convicted under Sec0on 15 of the NDPS Act vide judgment dated 30.07.2009 by the trial Court and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of ₹10,000/- with default sentence of three months rigorous imprisonment in case of non-payment 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 submi9ed 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 PRIYANKA 2025.03.28 15:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRA-S-1796-SB-2009 (O&M) -22005; that appellant was young person of 21 years at that 0me; that appellant has already undergone actual sentence of 04 months and 13 days 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 13 days. He was young boy of 21 years of age at the 0me of offence, which had taken place way back in 2005 i.e. 20 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 fine is concerned, it will remain the same. Disposed of.
( DEEPAK GUPTA ) JUDGE March 27, 2025 Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes Whether Reportable No PRIYANKA 2025.03.28 15:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document