IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 373 CRA-1957-SB-2006 Date of Decision.: 26.05.2025 Bi)u Singh …..Appellant Vs. State of Haryana .….Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- None for the appellant. Mr. R.K.S. Brar, Addl. AG, Haryana. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Appellant Biu Singh was tried by Ld. Special Judge, Rewari in a case arising out of FIR No.144 dated 04.11.2005 under Sec.on 15 of the NDPS Act registered at Police Sta.on Kasola, as he was found in possession of 20 Kgs, 400 grams of poppy husk. A2er trial, the appellant was convicted under Sec.on 15 of the NDPS Act vide judgment dated 18.09.2006 by the trial Court and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay fine of ₹50,000/- with default sentence of 15 months rigorous imprisonment in case of non-payment of fine. 2. Against the abovesaid convic.on and sentence, this appeal was filed. 3. Today nobody is appearing on behalf of the appellant. This Court has gone through the impugned judgment of the trial Court and finds that convic.on has been recorded a2er proper apprecia.on of the evidence on record. This Court does not find any reason so as to interfere in the impugned judgment of convic.on and as such, the same is hereby maintained. 4. However as far as the impugned order of sentence is concerned it is no.ced that appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.05.26 18:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-1957-SB-2006 -2- imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay fine of ₹50,000/- with default sentence of 15 months rigorous imprisonment in case of non- payment of fine. 5. The order dated 07.11.2006, whereby sentence of the appellant was suspended would reveal that appellant had already undergone total custody sentence of about one year. Nothing has been brought on record to suggest that a2er this convic.on, appellant has been involved in any other case. The offence had taken place way back in 2005 i.e. 20 years back. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. 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. ( DEEPAK GUPTA ) JUDGE May 26, 2025 Nee.ka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.05.26 18:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document