Fatti Kaur v. State Of Punjab

201 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-S-407-SB-2009 Date of Decision: March 10, 2025 Fa* Kaur ... Appellant

Versus

State of Pujab

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Vijender Kumar Rana, Advocate for Mr. Kuldeep V. Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Surya Kumar, AAG, Punjab.

DEEPAK GUPTA , J.(Oral) Appellant Fa$ Kaur was tried by Ld. Judge, Special Court, Barnala in a case arising out of FIR No.163, dated 12.06.2008, under Sec2on 15 of the NDPS Act registered at Police Sta2on Barnala, as she was found in possession of 5 Kg of poppy husk. A6er trial, the appellant was convicted under Sec2on 15 of the NDPS Act vide judgment dated 12.02.2009 by the trial Court and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 04 months and to pay fine of ₹500/- with default sentence of 01 months rigorous imprisonment in case of non-payment of fine. 2.

Against the abovesaid convic2on and sentence, this appeal was filed.

3.

Today learned counsel for the appellant states at the outset that appellant does not press the appeal against the judgment of convic2on; and that appellant confines his prayer only against the order of sentence. It is submi=ed that appellant would be sa2sfied, in case she is sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by her. 4.

Learned counsel points out that offence pertains to the year 2008; that appellant was young lady of 28 years at that 2me; that appellant has already undergone actual sentence of 01 month and 16 days and is not involved in any other case and so, she deserves to be sentenced for the period already undergone by her.

Sarita Rani 2025.03.11 16:49 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order

CRA-S-407-SB-2009 - 2 - 2025:PHHC:033695 5.

Learned State counsel has not seriously objected to the aforesaid prayer.

6.

The custody cer2ficate placed on record by the respondentState would reveal that appellant has already undergone actual custody sentence of 01 month and 16 days. It is revealed further that she has no criminal antecedents. Nothing has been brought on record to suggest that a6er this convic2on, appellant has been involved in any other case. She was a young lady of 28 years at the 2me of offence, which had taken place way back in 2008 i.e. 17 years back.

7.

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.

8.

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.

March 10, 2025 (DEEPAK GUPTA) sarita JUDGE Whether reasoned/speaking:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No Sarita Rani 2025.03.11 16:49 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order