Mohinder Paul v. State Of Punjab

S. No.345

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH **** CRA-S-328-SB of 2006 (O&M) Date of Decision:25.04.2025 Mohinder Paul .....Appellant Vs.

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

Mr. Rajiv K. Takkar, DAG, Punjab.

**** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (Oral) Appellant- Mohinder Paul was tried by Ld. Special Court, Barnala in a case arising out of FIR No.24 dated 17.03.1999 under Sec3on 18 of the NDPS Act registered at Police Sta3on Tapa, as he was found in possession of 02 Kg of opium. A6er trial, the appellant was convicted under Sec3on 18 of the NDPS Act vide judgment dated 10.02.2006 by the trial Court and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay fine of ₹5,000/- with default sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment in case of non-payment of fine.

2.

Against the abovesaid convic3on 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 convic3on has been recorded a6er proper apprecia3on of the evidence on record. This Court does not find any reason so as to interfere in the impugned judgment of convic3on and as such, the same is hereby maintained. 4.

However as far as the impugned order of sentence is concerned it is no3ced that appellant was sentenced for a period of four years' rigorous RENU 2025.04.25 17:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CRA-S-328-SB of 2006 (O&M) -2imprisonment and to pay fine of ₹5,000/- with default sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment in case of non-payment of fine. 5.

Though the custody cer3ficate has not been placed on record but perusal of the order dated 17.02.2006 passed by this Court would reveal that appellant has already undergone sentence of one year and seven months during trial.

6.

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it will be in the interest of jus3ce, 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.

7.

Consequently, the present appeal is partly accepted. By maintaining the impugned judgment against convic3on, 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 fine is concerned, it will remain same.

8.

However, it is made clear that amount of fine, if not paid earlier, shall be deposited before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned, within a period of four weeks from today, failing which the appellant will have to carry out the complete sentence as imposed by the trial Court. Disposed of.

April 25, 2025 ( DEEPAK GUPTA ) renu JUDGE Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No RENU 2025.04.25 17:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh