Sukha Singh v. State Of Punjab

S. No.347

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH **** CRA-S-372-SB of 2006 (O&M) Date of Decision:25.04.2025 Sukha Singh .....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- Sukha Singh was tried by Ld. Special Court, Amritsar in a case arising out of FIR No.34 dated 08.05.2002 under Sec2on 15 of the NDPS Act registered at Police Sta2on Khemkaran, as he was found in possession of 05 Kg 250 grams of poppy husk. A4er trial, the appellant was convicted under Sec2on 15 of the NDPS Act vide judgment dated 31.01.2006 by the trial Court and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of ₹10,000/- with default sentence of three 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 a4er 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 two years rigorous impris RENU 2025.04.25 17:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CRA-S-372-SB of 2006 (O&M) -2onment and to pay fine of ₹10,000/- with default sentence of three months' rigorous imprisonment in case of non-payment of fine. 5.

The custody cer2ficate placed on record by the respondent-State would reveal that appellant has already undergone total sentence of 03 months and 21 days. Custody cer2ficate further indicates that appellant is involved in one more case i.e. FIR No.153 of 2002 registered under Sec2on 15 of the NDPS Act. 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 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