Des Raj Vs State of Pb. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Des Raj Vs State of Pb. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned judgment against conviction maintained; order of sentence modified to imprisonment for the period already undergone; fine (Rs. 500), if not paid earlier, to be deposited before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned within four weeks, failing which the complete sentence as imposed by the trial Court is to be carried out; petition disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the order of sentence imposed on the petitioner (one year rigorous imprisonment plus Rs. 500 fine) should be reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him, the petitioner having withdrawn his challenge to the judgment of conviction.

Court's answer

Although the custody certificate was not placed on record by the State, perusal of the record shows that the petitioner was taken into custody on the date of the appellate order (31.01.2007) and his sentence was suspended by this Court by order dated 05.04.2007; therefore he remained in custody at least from 31.01.2007 to 05.04.2007.

Ratio / Principle

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it will be in the interest of justice if the period of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioner, instead of sending him behind bars in the company of hardened criminals.

Key takeaways

The present petition is partly accepted: the impugned judgment against conviction is maintained, while the order of sentence as passed by the trial Court is modified and the petitioner is sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by him.ratio¶26
The amount of fine, if not paid earlier, shall be deposited before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned within four weeks from the date of decision, failing which the petitioner will have to carry out the complete sentence as imposed by the trial Court.ratio¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal revision (CRR-532-2007 (O&M)), High Court of Punjab and Haryana, decided 01.07.2025 (oral) by Deepak Gupta, J.: Des Raj, convicted under Section 61 of the Excise Act (FIR No.57 dated 31.03.2004, PS City Shimlapuri, possession of 20 cartoons i.e. 240 bottles of English liquor) by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana vide judgment dated 15.05.2006, and sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment plus Rs. 500 fine (default 15 days RI), with conviction and sentence upheld in appeal on 31.01.2007 by the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc) Fast Track Court, Ludhiana, did not press the challenge to conviction and confined his prayer to the order of sentence, seeking sentence of the period already undergone. Noting that the custody certificate was not produced by the State but that the petitioner stood in custody at least from 31.01.2007 to 05.04.2007 (taken into custody on the appellate-order date; sentence suspended by High Court order dated 05.04.2007), and that the offence dated back 21 years, the Court held reduction of imprisonment to the period already undergone to be in the interest of justice. The petition was partly accepted: conviction maintained, trial Court's order of sentence modified to imprisonment for the period already undergone, with the unpaid fine of Rs. 500 to be deposited before the Chief Judicial Magistrate within four weeks, failing which the complete trial-Court sentence was to be carried out. Disposed of.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

202

CRR-532-2007 (O&M) Date of Decision.:01.07.2025

Des Raj

…..Pe��oner

Vs.

State of Punjab

.….Respondent

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

Present:Mr. Naresh Prabhakar, Advocate for the pe��oner.

Ms. Pra�bha Bali, AAG, Punjab.

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

Pe��oner Des Raj was tried by Ld. Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Ludhiana in a case arising out of FIR No.57 dated 31.03.2004 under Sec�on 61 of Excise Act registered at Police Sta�on City, Shimlapuri as he was found in possession of 20 cartoons i.e. 240 bo�les of English liquor. A�er trial, the pe��oner Des Raj was convicted under Sec�on 61 of Excise Act vide judgment dated 15.05.2006 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 15 days rigorous imprisonment in case of non-payment of fine. On appeal, the judgment of convic�on and order of sentence were upheld by the Court of learned Addi�onal Sessions Judge, (Adhoc) Fast Track Court, Ludhiana vide judgment dated 31.01.2007.

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

Today learned counsel for the pe��oner stated at the outset that pe��oner does not press the pe��on against the judgment of

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.07.01 18:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

-2-

CRR-532-2007 (O&M)

convic�on; and that pe��oner confines his prayer only against order of sentence. It is submi�ed that pe��oner would be sa�sfied, in case he is sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by him.

Learned counsel points out that pe��oner was 40 years of age at the �me of offence which had taken place wayback in 2004 i.e. 21 years back and so, he deserves to be sentenced for the period already undergone by him.

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

Although the custody cer�ficate has not been placed on record by the State but perusal of the record would reveal that convic�on was recorded by the trial Court on 15.05.2006 and appeal against the convic�on was dismissed by the Appellate Court on 31.01.2007. As per the order of the Appellate Court, the pe��oner was taken into custody on the same date. His sentence was suspended by this Court by way of order dated 05.04.2007, which means that at least from 31.01.2007 to 05.04.2007 the pe��oner remained in custody.

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 pe��oner, instead of sending him behind bars in the company of hardened criminals.

Consequently, the present pe��on 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 pe��oner is sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by him.

However, it is made clear that amount of fine, if not paid earlier, shall be deposited before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.07.01 18:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRR-532-2007 (O&M) -3-

concerned, within a period of four weeks’ from today, failing which the pe��oner will have to carry out the complete sentence as imposed by the trial Court.

Disposed of.

( DEEPAK GUPTA ) JUDGE

July 01, 2025

Nee�ka Tuteja

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

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.07.01 18:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document