Channan Singh v. State Of Punjab
204 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-S-2364-SB-2009 Date of Decision: April 22, 2025 Channan Singh ... Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Shrome Garg, Advocate for Mr. Rahul Sharma-I, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Rajeev K. Takkar, DAG, Punjab.
DEEPAK GUPTA , J.(Oral) Appellant - Channan Singh was tried by learned Judge, Special Court, Tarn Taran in a case arising out of FIR No.157 dated 07.07.2002, under Sec1on 15 (Act No.61 of 1985) of the NDPS Act, registered at Police Sta1on Valtoha, as he was found in possession of 49 Kg of poppy husk. A9er trial, the appellant was convicted under Sec1on 15(b) of the NDPS Act vide judgment dated 03.09.2009 by the trial Court and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 03 year and to pay fine of ₹20,000/- with default sentence of 01 year 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 2002; that appellant was a middle aged person of 53 years at that 1me; that appellant has already undergone actual sentence of 05 months and 22 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-2364-SB-2009 - 2 - 2025:PHHC:051410 6.
The custody cer1ficate placed on record by the respondentState would reveal that appellant has already undergone actual custody sentence of 05 months and 22 days. It is revealed further that he has no criminal antecedents. Nothing has been brought on record to suggest that a9er this convic1on, appellant has been involved in any other case. He was a middle aged person of 53 years of age at the 1me of offence, which had taken place way back in 2002 i.e. almost 23 years back, meaning thereby that now the appellant would be around 75 years of age. 7.
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.
8.
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. 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