Sukhdeep Singh v. State Of Punjab

CRA-S-658-SB-2009 Date of Decision: March 10, 2025 Sukhdeep Singh @ Sukhi ... Appellant

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Ankush Singla, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Surya Kumar, AAG, Punjab.

DEEPAK GUPTA , J.(Oral) Appellant - Sukhdeep Singh @ Sukhi was tried by Ld. Special Judge, Barnala in a case arising out of FIR No.87 dated 02.09.2007, under Sec1ons 15 and 18 of the NDPS Act registered at Police Sta1on Bhadaur, as he was found in possession of 2 Kg 500 grams of poppy husk. A5er trial, the appellant was convicted under Sec1ons 15 and 18 of the NDPS Act vide judgment dated 12.02.2009 by the trial Court and was sentenced to undergo maximum rigorous imprisonment for a period of 09 months and to pay fine of ₹500/- each with default sentence of 01 month rigorous imprisonment in case of non-payment of fine and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

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 2007; that appellant was young person of 27 years at that 1me; that appellant has already undergone actual sentence of 03 months and 03 days and is not involved in any other case and so, he deserves to be sentenced for the period already undergone by him.

Sarita Rani 2025.03.11 10:34 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order

CRA-S-658-SB-2009 - 2 - 2025:PHHC:033718 5.

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

6.

The custody cer1ficate placed on record by the respondentState would reveal that appellant has already undergone actual custody sentence of 03 months and 03 days. It is revealed further that he has no criminal antecedents. Nothing has been brought on record to suggest that a5er this convic1on, appellant has been involved in any other case. He was young boy of 25 years of age at the 1me of offence, which had taken place way back in 2007 i.e. 18 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. Disposed of.

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

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No Sarita Rani 2025.03.11 10:34 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order