Swaran Singh v. State Of Haryana

201 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-S-402-SB-2009 Date of Decision: March 25, 2025 Swaran Singh ... Appellant

Versus

State of Haryana

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Mayank Aggarwal, Advocate for Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. R.K.S. Brar, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

DEEPAK GUPTA , J.(Oral) Appellant - Swaran Singh was tried by learned Judge, Special Court, Ferozepur, in a case arising out of FIR No.98 dated 04.06.2005, under Sec1on 15 of the NDPS Act registered at Police Sta1on Madhuban, as he was found in possession of 35 Kg of poppy husk. A6er trial, the appellant was convicted under Sec1on 15(b) of the NDPS Act vide judgment dated 11.02.2009 by the trial Court and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 03 years and to pay fine of ₹30,000/- with default sentence of 06 months rigorous imprisonment in case of nonpayment 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 2005; that appellant was an old person of 70 years at that 1me; that appellant has already undergone actual sentence of 02 months and 15 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 2025.03.25 18:35 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order

CRA-S-402-SB-2009 - 2 - 2025:PHHC:040502 6.

The custody cer1ficate placed on record by the respondentState would reveal that appellant has already undergone actual custody sentence of 02 months and 15 days. It is revealed further that he has no criminal antecedents. Nothing has been brought on record to suggest that a6er this convic1on, appellant has been involved in any other case. He was about 70 years old person at the 1me of offence, which had taken place way back in 2005 i.e. 20 years back.

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. 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