Satnam Singh v. The St. Of Pb.
322 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-S-989-SB-2005 Date of Decision: April 04, 2025 Satnam Singh ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Rajeev K. Takkar, DAG, Punjab.
DEEPAK GUPTA , J.(Oral) Appellant - Satnam Singh was tried by learned Judge, Special Court, Jalandhar, in a case arising out of FIR No.151, dated 15.05.2001, under Sec0on 15 of the NDPS Act registered at Police Sta0on Shahkot, as he was found in possession of 35 Kg of poppy husk. A2er trial, the appellant was convicted under Sec0on 15 of the NDPS Act vide judgment dated 10.05.2005 by the trial Court and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of ₹5,000/- with default sentence of 02 months rigorous imprisonment in case of nonpayment of fine. 2.
Against the abovesaid convic0on 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 convic0on; and that appellant confines his prayer only against order of sentence. It is submi6ed that appellant would be sa0sfied, 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 2001; that appellant was young person of 27 years at that 0me; that appellant has already undergone actual sentence of 07 months and is not involved in any other case 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 cer0ficate placed on record by the respondentState would reveal that appellant has already undergone actual custody Sarita Rani 2025.04.05 10:36 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order
CRA-S-989-SB-2005 - 2 - 2025:PHHC:046718 sentence of 07 months. It is revealed further that he has no criminal antecedents. Nothing has been brought on record to suggest that a2er this convic0on, appellant has been involved in any other case. He was young person of 27 years of age at the 0me of offence, which had taken place way back in 2001 i.e. 24 years back.
7.
In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it will be in the interest of jus0ce, 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 convic0on, 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.
April 04, 2025 (DEEPAK GUPTA) sarita JUDGE Whether reasoned/speaking:
Yes/No Whether reportable:
Yes/No Sarita Rani 2025.04.05 10:36 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order