Partly allowed¶¶21

Suresh Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC24 Apr 2025CRA-S/2958/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NDPS Act Section 15 conviction; 17 Kg poppy husk; FIR No.93 dated 25.04.2006, PS Kot Bhai; Special Court Muktsar; appeal against sentence only; sentence reduced to period already undergone (02 months 24 days); custody certificate; no criminal antecedents; fine Rs.10,000/- with default sentence of one month RI; fine payable within four weeks else complete sentence; Punjab and Haryana High Court; Deepak Gupta J.; CRA-S 2009; appeal partly accepted; sentence modification on grounds of elapsed time and antecedents.

What did the court decide?

Sentence modified to imprisonment for the period already undergone (02 months and 24 days); conviction maintained; fine of Rs.10,000/- retained unchanged and, if unpaid, to be deposited within four weeks, failing which the complete original sentence revives. ¶¶21

Suresh Singh Vs State of Punjab — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether, the appellant having not pressed the appeal against the judgment of conviction and having confined his prayer to the order of sentence, the sentence passed by the trial Court should be modified to imprisonment for the period already undergone +1 more

¶¶13

Court's answer

The appeal is partly accepted: the impugned judgment of conviction is maintained, the order of sentence passed by the trial Court is modified, and the appellant is sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by him.

¶¶21

Ratio / Principle

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances (offence of 2006, appellant then aged 33, 02 months and 24 days of sentence already undergone, no other criminal antecedents), it is in the interest of justice to reduce the period of imprisonment to the period already undergone rather than send the appellant back to prison.

¶¶20

Key takeaways

The fine remains the same; if not paid earlier, it shall be deposited before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned within four weeks, failing which the appellant will have to carry out the complete sentence as imposed by the trial Court.ratio¶¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRA-S-2958-SB of 2009 (O&M), decided 24.04.2025 (High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, Deepak Gupta, J.): Suresh Singh, convicted under Section 15 of the NDPS Act by the Special Court, Muktsar (judgment dated 16.11.2009) for possession of 17 Kg of poppy husk arising out of FIR No.93 dated 25.04.2006, Police Station Kot Bhai, and sentenced to two years' imprisonment with a fine of Rs.10,000/- (default: one month's rigorous imprisonment), did not press the appeal against conviction and confined his prayer to the order of sentence. The custody certificate showed 02 months and 24 days already undergone, no other criminal antecedents, and an offence committed 19 years earlier when the appellant was 33. Holding the reduction to be in the interest of justice, the Court maintained the conviction, modified the sentence to the period already undergone, kept the fine unchanged with liberty to deposit it within four weeks failing which the complete original sentence would have to be served. Appeal partly accepted and disposed of.

¶1

S. No.204

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

********

¶4

CRA-S-2958-SB of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision:24.04.2025

¶5

Suresh Singh .....Appellant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

State of Punjab .....Respondent

¶8

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

¶9

Present:Mr. A.S. Sivia, Advocate for the appellant. ****

¶10

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (Oral)

¶11

Appellant- Suresh Singh was tried by Ld. Special Court, Muktsar in a case arising out of FIR No.93 dated 25.04.2006 under Sec�on 15 of the NDPS Act registered at Police Sta�on Kot Bhai, as he was found in possession of 17 Kg of poppy husk. A�er trial, the appellant was convicted under Sec�on 15 of the NDPS Act vide judgment dated 16.11.2009 by the trial Court and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of ₹10,000/- with default sentence of 01 month’s rigorous imprisonment in case of non-payment of fine.

¶12

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

¶13

Today learned counsel for the appellant stated at the outset that appellant do not press the appeal against the judgment of convic�on; and that appellant confine 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.

¶14

Learned counsel points out that offence pertains to the year 2006; that appellant was of 33 years at that �me; that appellant had already undergone

¶15

RENU 2025.04.25 17:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶16

CRA-S-2958-SB of 2009 (O&M) -2-

¶17

total sentence of 02 months and 24 days and so, he deserve to be sentenced for the period already undergone by him.

¶18

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

¶19

The custody cer�ficate placed on record by the respondent-State would reveal that appellant had already undergone total sentence of 02 months and 24 days. It is revealed further that appellant has no other criminal antecedents. He was of 33 years of age at the �me of offence, which had taken place way back in 2006 i.e. 19 years back.

¶20

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.

¶21

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. As far as fine is concerned, it will remain same.

¶22

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.

¶23

Disposed of.

¶24

April 24, 2025 renu

¶25

( DEEPAK GUPTA ) JUDGE

¶26

Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No

¶27

RENU 2025.04.25 17:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Suresh Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Singh v. State of Punjab

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

Puneet Kumar Vs State of Haryana

Balkar Singh and Ors. Vs State of Hry