Puneet Kumar Vs State of Haryana

Appellant – Puneet Kumar was tried by learned Judge, Special Court, Kurukshetra in a case arising out of FIR No.42 dated 26.04.2000, under Sec�on 15 of the NDPS Act and Sec�on 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act,1914, registered at Police Sta�on Shahabad, as he was found in possession of 7.2 Kg of poppy husk, besides 384 pouches of illicit liquor make Hero whiskey. A�er trial, the appellant was convicted and sentenced by the trial Court vide judgment and order dated 17.08.2004, which is as under:-

¶11

Sr. No.	Offence	Sentence (R.I)	Fine	Further sentence in case of non-payment of fine
1.	15 NDPS Act	02 years	`20,000/-	R.I. for 01 year
2.	61(1)(a) Excise Act	01 year	`5,000/-	R.I. for 03 months

¶12

Both the substan�ve sentences were directed to run

¶13

concurrently.

¶14

Against the abovesaid convic�on and sentence, this appeal was filed.

¶15

Today learned counsel for the appellant stated at the outset that appellant does not press the appeal against the judgment of convic�on; and that appellant confines his prayer only against order of sentence. It is submi�ed that appellant would be sa�sfied, in case he is sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by him.

¶16

Learned counsel points out that offence pertains to the year 2004; that appellant was young person of 24 years at that �me; that appellant has already undergone actual sentence of 04 months and 10 days

¶17

Sarita Rani 2025.04.24 18:15 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order

¶18

CRA-S-1967-SB-2004

¶19

- 2 -

¶20

2025:PHHC:052384

¶21

and is not involved in any other case and so, he deserves to be sentenced for the period already undergone by him.

¶22

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

¶23

The custody cer�ficate placed on record by the respondentState would reveal that appellant has already undergone actual custody sentence of 04 months and 10 days. It is revealed further that he has no criminal antecedents. Nothing has been brought on record to suggest that a�er this convic�on, appellant has been involved in any other case. He was young boy of 24 years of age at the �me of offence, which had taken place way back in 2004 i.e. 21 years back.

¶24

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it will be in the interest of jus�ce, 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.

¶25

Consequently, the present appeal is partly accepted. By maintaining the impugned judgment against convic�on, 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.

¶26

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.

¶27

Disposed of.

¶28

April 24, 2025		(DEEPAK GUPTA)
sarita		JUDGE
	Whether reasoned/speaking:	Yes/No
	Whether reportable:	Yes/No

¶29

Sarita Rani 2025.04.24 18:15 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order

Puneet Kumar v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Puneet Kumar v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gurmail Singh Vs State of Punjab

Sham Lal Vs State of Haryana

M/S Munak Chem.Etc. Vs State of Pb.

Sukhdev Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab

Balkar Singh and Ors. Vs State of Hry

Suresh Singh Vs State of Punjab