Daljeet Kaur v. State Of Punjab
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH **** CRA-S-3208-SB-2010 Date of Decision:-28.03.2025 DALJEET KAUR .....Appellant Vs.
STATE OF PUNJAB ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. S.S. Gill, Advocate the appellant.
Mr. R.K. Takkar, DAG, Punjab.
**** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Appellant was tried by Ld. Special Court, Fatehgarh Sahib in a case arising out of FIR No.151 dated 18.09.2009 under Sec1on 15 of the NDPS Act, 1985 registered at Police Sta1on Fatehgarh Sahib, as she was found in possession of 20 kgs of poppy husk (Choora Post). A4er trial, the appellant was convicted under Sec1on 15(b) of the NDPS Act vide judgment dated 08.12.2010 by the trial Court and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of ₹2,000/- with default sentence of one month rigorous imprisonment in case of nonpayment 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 her prayer only against order of sentence. It is submi:ed that appellant would be sa1sfied, in case she is sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by her. 4.
Learned counsel points out that offence pertains to the year PRIYANKA 2025.03.28 18:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRA-S-3208-SB-2010 2009; that appellant was of 47 years at that 1me; that appellant has already undergone actual sentence of 06 months and 18 days and so, she deserves to be sentenced for the period already undergone by her. 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 06 months and 18 days. She was of 47 years of age at the 1me of offence, which had taken place way back in 2009 i.e. 16 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 her 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 her. 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 18:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document