Sham Lal v. State Of Haryana

203 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-S-2258-SB-2009 Date of Decision: April 22, 2025 Sham Lal ... Appellant

Versus

State of Haryana

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. S.N. Pillania, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. R.K.S. Brar, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

DEEPAK GUPTA , J.(Oral) Appellant - Sham Lal was tried by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fatehabad in a case arising out of FIR No.622 dated 12.09.2007, under Sec0on 15 and 16 (Act No.61 of 1985) of the NDPS Act registered at Police Sta0on Ra0a, as he was found in possession of 3 Kg of poppy husk. A8er trial, the appellant was convicted under Sec0on 15(b) of the NDPS Act vide judgment dated 16.09.2009 by the trial Court and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 03 months and to pay fine of ₹1,000/- with default sentence of 01 month simple 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 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 2007; that appellant was young person of 24 years at that 0me; that appellant has already undergone actual sentence of 01 month and 23 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 2025.04.22 17:27 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order

CRA-S-2258-SB-2009 -2 - 2025:PHHC:051432 6.

The custody cer0ficate placed on record by the respondentState would reveal that appellant has already undergone actual custody sentence of 01 months and 23 days. It is revealed further that he has no criminal antecedents. Nothing has been brought on record to suggest that a8er this convic0on, appellant has been involved in any other case. He was young boy of 24 years of age at the 0me of offence, which had taken place way back in 2007 i.e. 18 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. 9.

However, it is made clear that amount of fine, if not paid earlier, shall be deposited before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned, within a period of four weeks from today, failing which the appellant will have to carry out the complete sentence as imposed by the trial Court.

Disposed of.

April 22, 2025 (DEEPAK GUPTA) sarita JUDGE Whether reasoned/speaking:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No Sarita Rani 2025.04.22 17:27 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order