Sunita v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH **** CRA-S-281-SB-2009 Date of Decision.:03.03.2025 Sunita .....Appellant Vs.

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 Sunita was tried by Ld. Special Court, Hoshiarpur in a case arising out of FIR No.178 dated 28.11.2005 under Sec2on 15 of the NDPS Act registered at Police Mahilpur, as she was found in possession of 7.5 Kg of poppy husk. A3er trial, the appellant was convicted under Sec2on 15 of the NDPS Act vide judgment dated 10.01.2009 by the trial Court and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 06 months and to pay fine of ₹5,000/- with default sentence of 01 month in case of non-payment of fine.

2.

Against the abovesaid convic2on 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 convic2on has been recorded a3er proper apprecia2on of the evidence on record. This Court does not find any reason so as to interfere in the impugned judgment of convic2on and as such, the same is hereby maintained.

4.

However as far as the impugned order of sentence is NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.03.04 17:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRA-S-281-SB-2009 concerned it is no2ced that appellant was sentenced for a period of 06 months and to pay fine of ₹5,000/- with default sentence of 01 month in case of non-payment of fine for keeping in possession of 7.5 Kg of poppy husk.

5.

The custody cer2ficate placed on record by the respondentState would reveal that appellant has already undergone actual custody sentence of 02 months and 25 days. It is revealed further that she has no criminal antecedents. Although the appellant has not placed on record any affidavit in terms of order dated 24.11.2023 but custody cer2ficate does not indicate that pe22oner is involved in any criminal ac2vity a3er the impugned convic2on. She was a woman of 30 years of age at the 2me of offence, which had taken place way back in 2005 i.e. 20 years back. 6.

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it will be in the interest of jus2ce, 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 convic2on, 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. Disposed of.

( DEEPAK GUPTA ) JUDGE March 03, 2025 Nee2ka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.03.04 17:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document