Baru Singh v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH **** CRA-S-1212-SB-2010 (O&M) Date of Decision.:02.04.2025 Baru Singh .....Appellant Vs.

State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. K.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. R.K. Takkar, DAG, Punjab.

**** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Appellant Baru Singh was tried by Ld. Special Court, Mansa in a case arising out of FIR No.66 dated 30.07.2007 under Sec1on 15 of the NDPS Act registered at Police Sta1on Boha, as he was found in possession of 15 kg of poppy husk. A4er trial, the appellant was convicted under Sec1on 15 of the NDPS Act vide judgment dated 04.05.2010 by the trial Court and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years 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 convic1on 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 convic1on; and that appellant confines his prayer only against order of sentence. It is submi:ed that appellant would be sa1sfied, 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 NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.04.03 10:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRA-S-1212-SB-2010 (O&M) -22007; that appellant was young person of 45 years at that 1me; that appellant has already undergone actual sentence of 04 months and 19 days and so, he deserves to be sentenced for the period already undergone by him.

5.

Reply by way of an affidavit of Sh. Sukhdev Singh Saggu, PPS-I, Superintendent, Central Jail, Bathinda has been filed on behalf of respondent- State.

6.

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

7.

As per reply filed by Superintendent, Central Jail, Bathinda, the appellant had already undergone custody of 04 months and 19 days. He was 45 years of age at the 1me of offence, which had taken place way back in 2007 i.e. 18 years back. Thus, by now he is not less than 63 years of age. 8.

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it will be in the interest of jus1ce, 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.

9.

Consequently, the present appeal is partly accepted. By maintaining the impugned judgment against convic1on, 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.

( DEEPAK GUPTA ) JUDGE April 02, 2025 Nee1ka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.04.03 10:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document