Virbhan v. State Of Haryana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH **** CRA-S-2882-SB-2010 (O&M) Date of Decision:-28.03.2025 VIRBHAN .....Appellant Vs.
STATE OF HARYANA ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Mayank Aggarwal, Advocate, for Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Advocate the appellant.
Mr. R.K.S. Brar, Addl. AG., Haryana.
**** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Appellant was tried by Ld. Special Court, Karnal in a case arising out of FIR No.165 dated 18.07.2007 under Sec1on 15 of the NDPS Act, 1985 registered at Police Sta1on Nissing, Karnal, as he was found in possession of 10 kgs of poppy husk (Choora Post). A6er trial, the appellant was convicted under Sec1on 15(b) of the NDPS Act vide judgment dated 17.11.2010 by the trial Court and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and six months 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 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. PRIYANKA 2025.03.28 18:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRA-S-2882-SB-2010 (O&M) 4.
Learned counsel points out that offence pertains to the year 2007; that appellant was young person of 30 years at that 1me; that appellant has already undergone actual sentence of 02 months and 25 days and so, he deserves 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 respondentState would reveal that appellant has already undergone actual custody sentence of 02 months and 25 days. He was young boy of 30 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. As far as fine is concerned, it will remain the same. Disposed of.
(DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE March 28, 2025 Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes Whether Reportable No PRIYANKA 2025.03.28 18:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document