Sanjeev Kumar v. State Of Haryana

S. No.202

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH **** CRA-S-788-SB of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision:24.04.2025 Sanjeev Kumar .....Appellant Vs.

State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Gaurav Kumar, Advocate for Mr. L.S. Sekhon, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. R.K.S. Brar, Addl. AG, Haryana.

**** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (Oral) Appellant- Sanjeev Kumar was tried by Ld. Special Court, Panipat in a case arising out of FIR No.52 dated 26.02.2008 under Sec1on 15 of the NDPS Act registered at Police Sta1on Sadar, Panipat, as he was found in possession of 9 Kg 500 grams of poppy straw. A5er trial, the appellant was convicted under Sec1on 15 of the NDPS Act vide judgment dated 04.03.2009 by the trial Court and vide order of sentence dated 05.03.2009, was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of ₹20,000/- with default sentence of 06 months imprisonment in case of non-payment of fine. 2.

Against the abovesaid convic1on and sentence, this appeal was filed. 3.

Today learned counsel for the appellant stated at the outset that appellant do not press the appeal against the judgment of convic1on; and that appellant confine 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 2008; that appellant was of 36 years at that 1me; that appellant had already undergone RENU 2025.04.25 17:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CRA-S-788-SB of 2009 -2total sentence of 02 months and 20 days and so, he deserve to be sentenced for the period already undergone by him.

5.

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

6.

The custody cer1ficate placed on record by the respondent-State would reveal that appellant had already undergone total sentence of 02 months and 20 days. It is revealed further that appellant- Sanjeev Kumar has no other criminal antecedents. He was of 36 years of age at the 1me 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 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. As far as fine is concerned, it will remain same.

9.

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 24, 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