Keema Singh v. State Of Punjab

202 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-S-716-SB-2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: March 24, 2025 Keema Singh ... Appellant

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- None for the appellant.

Mr. Rajeev K. Takkar, DAG, Punjab.

DEEPAK GUPTA , J.(Oral) Appellant - Keema Singh was tried by learned Special Court, Mansa in a case arising out of FIR No.38 of 19.02.2004 under Sec2on 15 of the NDPS Act registered at Police Sta2on Bhikhi, as he was found in possession of 35 Kg of poppy husk. A5er trial, the appellant was convicted under Sec2on 15 of the NDPS Act vide judgment dated 06.12.2008 by the trial Court and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 01 year and to pay fine of ₹1,000/- with default sentence of 03 months rigorous imprisonment in case of non-payment of fine. 2.

Against the abovesaid convic2on 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 convic2on has been recorded a5er proper apprecia2on of the evidence on record. This Court does not find any reason so as to interfere in the impugned judgment of convic2on and as such, the same is hereby maintained.

4.

However as far as the impugned order of sentence is concerned, it is no2ced that appellant was sentenced for a period of 01 year and to pay fine of ₹1,000/- with default sentence of 03 months rigorous imprisonment in case of non-payment of fine for keeping in possession of 35 Kg poppy husk.

5.

The custody cer2ficate placed on record by the respondentState would reveal that appellant has already undergone actual custody sentence of 08 months and 23 days.Custody cer2ficate further indicates that Sarita Rani 2025.03.25 18:07 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order

CRA-S-716-SB-2009 (O&M) - 2 - 2025:PHHC:040011 appellant is not involved in any other criminal case. Although the appellant has not placed on record any affidavit in terms of order dated 30.07.2024, but custody cer2ficate does not indicate that the appellant is involved in any criminal ac2vity a5er the impugned convic2on. 6.

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 him behind bars in the company of hardened criminals.

7.

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 him. As far as the fine is concerned, it will remain same. Disposed of.

March 24, 2025 (DEEPAK GUPTA) sarita JUDGE Whether reasoned/speaking:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No Sarita Rani 2025.03.25 18:07 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order