Satpal Singh @ Satti And ANR. v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH **** CRA-S-284-SB-2009 (O&M) Date of Decision.:04.03.2025 Satpal Singh @ Sa1 and another .....Appellants Vs.

State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- None for the appellants.

Mr. Neeraj Madaan, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

**** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Appellants Satpal Singh @ Sa and Nikka Singh were tried by Ld. Special Court, Bathinda in a case arising out of FIR No.95 dated 27.07.2005 under Sec0on 15 (b) of the NDPS Act registered at Police Sta0on Sangat, as they were found in possession of 25 Kgs 100 gms of poppy husk. A6er trial, the appellants were convicted under Sec0on 15 (b) of the NDPS Act vide judgment dated 29.01.2009 by the trial Court and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each and to pay fine of ₹1,000/- each with default sentence of one month rigorous imprisonment each 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 appellants. This Court has gone through the impugned judgment of the trial Court and finds that convic0on has been recorded a6er 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.

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.03.04 17:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRA-S-284-SB-2009 (O&M) -24.

However as far as the impugned order of sentence is concerned, it is no0ced that appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each and to pay fine of ₹1,000/- each with default sentence of one month rigorous imprisonment each in case of non-payment of fine for keeping in possession of 25 Kgs 100 gms of poppy husk.

5.

The custody cer0ficate placed on record by the respondentState would reveal that appellant Satpal Singh has already undergone actual custody/sentence of 03 months and 03 days; whereas appellant Nikka singh has already undergone actual custody/sentence of 02 months and 19 days. Custody cer0ficate further indicates that appellants are not involved in any other criminal case. Although the appellants have not placed on record any affidavit in terms of order dated 23.07.2024 but custody cer0ficates do not indicate that appellants are involved in any criminal ac0vity a6er 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 appellants, instead of sending them 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 appellants are sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by him. Disposed of.

( DEEPAK GUPTA ) JUDGE March 04, 2025 Nee0ka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.03.04 17:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document