Balbir Dass @ Beera v. State Of Punjab

S. No.205

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH **** CRA-S-71-SB of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision:24.04.2025 Balbir Dass @ Beera .....Appellant Vs.

State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Vipul Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Rajiv K. Takkar, DAG, Punjab.

**** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (Oral) Appellant- Balbir Dass @ Beera was tried by Ld. Special Court, Nawanshahr in a case arising out of FIR No.302 dated 12.10.2004 under Sec3on 18 of the NDPS Act registered at Police Sta3on City Nawanshahr, as he was found in possession of 250 grams of opium. A7er trial, the appellant was convicted under Sec3on 18 of the NDPS Act vide judgment dated 24.12.2009 by the trial Court and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of ₹500/- with default sentence of 02 months rigorous imprisonment in case of non-payment of fine. 2.

Against the abovesaid convic3on 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 convic3on; and that appellant confine his prayer only against order of sentence. It is submi<ed that appellant would be sa3sfied, 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 2004; that appellant was of 44 years at that 3me; that appellant had already undergone RENU 2025.04.25 17:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CRA-S-71-SB of 2010 -2two months of his actual sentence as per order dated 12.01.2010 passed by this Court, 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 appellant had already undergone two months of his actual sentence as per order dated 12.01.2010 passed by this Court. He was of 44 years of age at the 3me of offence, which had taken place way back in 2004 i.e. 21 years back.

7.

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it will be in the interest of jus3ce, 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 convic3on, 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