Surinder Kaur v. State Of Punjab

334 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-S-1538-SB-2005 Date of Decision: April 04, 2025 Surinder Kaur ... 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 - Surinder Kaur was tried by learned Judge, Special Court, Jalandhar, in a case arising out of FIR No.117, dated 22.08.2002, under Sec0on 15 of the NDPS Act registered at Police Sta0on GRPS, Jalandhar, as he was found in possession of 20 Kg of poppy husk. A2er trial, the appellant was convicted under Sec0on 15 of the NDPS Act vide judgment dated 30.08.2005 by the trial Court and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of ₹3,000/- with default sentence of 01 month 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 01 year and to pay fine of ₹3,000/- with default sentence of 01 month rigorous imprisonment in case of non-payment of fine for keeping in possession of 20 Kg of poppy husk.

5.

The custody cer0ficate placed on record by the respondentState would reveal that appellant has already undergone actual custody Sarita Rani 2025.04.05 15:15 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order

CRA-S-1538-SB-2005 - 2 - 2025:PHHC:046747 sentence of 01 month and 29 days. Custody cer0ficate further indicates that appellant is not involved in any other criminal case. 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 her 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 her. As far as the fine is concerned, it will remain same. 8.

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 04, 2025 (DEEPAK GUPTA) sarita JUDGE Whether reasoned/speaking:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No Sarita Rani 2025.04.05 15:15 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order