(104) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CRA-S-2363-SB of 2004 (O&M) Date of Decision:01.04.2025 Dhian Singh .....Appellant Vs. State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Kapil Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (Oral) Appellant- Dhian Singh was tried by Ld. Special Judge, Panipat in a case arising out of FIR No.422 dated 13.09.1999 under Sec-on 15 of the NDPS Act registered at Police Sta-on City Panipat, as he along with co-accused was found in possession of 16 Kg of poppy husk. A2er trial, the appellant was convicted under Sec-on 15 of the NDPS Act vide judgment dated 16.11.2004 by the trial Court and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of ₹30,000/- with default sentence of 02 months imprisonment in case of non-payment of fine. 2. Against the abovesaid convic-on 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 convic-on; and that appellant confine his prayer only against order of sentence. It is submi9ed that appellant would be sa-sfied, in case he is sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by him. RENU 2025.04.01 17:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA-S-2363-SB of 2004 -2- 4. Learned counsel points out that offence pertains to the year 1999; that appellant had already undergone sentence of 20 days a2er convic-on and so, 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. Learned State Counsel also conceded to the fact that appellant had already undergone sentence of 20 days a2er convic-on. It is revealed further that appellant has no criminal antecedents. The offence had taken place way back in 1999 i.e. 26 years back. 7. 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. 8. 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. Disposed of. April 01, 2025 ( DEEPAK GUPTA ) renu JUDGE Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No RENU 2025.04.01 17:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh