Paramjit Singh @ Babbu v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH **** CRA-S-1410-SB-2010 Date of Decision.:06.03.2025 Paramjit Singh @ Babbu .....Appellant Vs.

State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Aman Kumar, Advocate for Mr. Prateek Pandit, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Puru Jarewal, AAG, Punjab.

**** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Appellant Paramjit Singh @ Babbu was tried by Ld. Special Court, Amritsar in a case arising out of FIR No.152 dated 30.05.2004 under Sec3on 18 of the NDPS Act registered at Police Sta3on Civil Lines, Amritsar, as he was found in possession of 1 kg 100 gms of opium. A6er trial, the appellant was convicted under Sec3on 18 of the NDPS Act vide judgment dated 21.05.2010 by the trial Court and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay fine of ₹40,000/- with default sentence of 09 months rigorous imprisonment in case of nonpayment of fine. 2.

Against the abovesaid convic3on 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 convic3on; and that appellant confines his prayer only against order of sentence. It is submi<ed that appellant would be sa3sfied, in case he is sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by him. NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.03.06 14:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRA-S-1410-SB-2010 -24.

Learned counsel points out that offence pertains to the year 2004; that appellant has already undergone actual sentence of 09 months and 14 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.

6.

The custody cer3ficate placed on record by the respondentState would reveal that appellant has already undergone actual custody sentence of 09 months and 14 days. It is revealed further that he has no criminal antecedents. Nothing has been brought on record to suggest that a6er this convic3on, appellant has been involved in any other case. He was 47 years of age at the 3me of offence, which had taken place way back in 2004 i.e. 21 years back.

7.

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it will be in the interest of jus3ce, 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 convic3on, 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. Disposed of.

( DEEPAK GUPTA ) JUDGE March 06, 2025 Nee3ka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.03.06 14:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document