Jasbir Singh v. State Of Punjab

202 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-S-2510-SB-2009 Date of Decision: March 25, 2025 Jasbir Singh ... Appellant

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- None for the appellant.

Mr. Rajeev K. Takkar, DAG, Punjab DEEPAK GUPTA , J.(Oral) Appellant - Jasbir Singh along with co-accused was tried by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rupnagar, in a case arising out of FIR No.230 dted 04.11.2006, under Sec0on 15 of the NDPS Act registered at Police Sta0on Kurali, as he was found in possession of 10 Kg of poppy husk. A2er trial, the appellant was convicted under Sec0on 15 of the NDPS Act vide judgment dated 19.10.2009 by the trial Court and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 02 years and to pay fine of ₹5,000/- with default sentence of 06 months rigorous imprisonment in case of non-payment of fine.

2.

Against the abovesaid convic0on and sentence, this appeal was filed.

3.

Today nobody is appearing on behalf of the appellant. This Court has gone through the impugned judgment of the trial Court and finds that convic0on has been recorded a2er proper apprecia0on of the evidence on record. This Court does not find any reason so as to interfere in the impugned judgment of convic0on and as such, the same is hereby maintained.

4.

However as far as the impugned order of sentence is concerned it is no0ced that appellant was sentenced for a period of 02 years and to pay fine of ₹5,000/- with default sentence of 06 months rigorous imprisonment in case of non-payment of fine for keeping in possession of 10 Kg poppy husk.

5.

The custody cer0ficate placed on record by the respondentState would reveal that appellant has already undergone actual custody Sarita Rani 2025.03.25 18:35 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order

CRA-S-2510-SB-2009 - 2 - 2025:PHHC:040518 sentence of 01 month and 09 days. Custody cer0ficate further indicates that appellant is not involved in any other criminal case. Although the appellant has not placed on record any affidavit in terms of order dated 04.07.2024, but custody cer0ficate does not indicate that pe00oner is involved in any criminal ac0vity a2er the impugned convic0on. 6.

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.

7.

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 the fine is concerned, it will remain same. Disposed of.

March 25, 2025 (DEEPAK GUPTA) sarita JUDGE Whether reasoned/speaking:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No Sarita Rani 2025.03.25 18:35 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order