IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 323 CRA-S-1014-SB-2005 Partap Singh …..Appellant Vs. State of Haryana .….Respondent CRA-S-1029-SB-2005 Hawa Singh …..Appellant Vs. State of Haryana .….Respondent Date of Decision:-25.04.2025 CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Ms. Karamjeet Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. R.K.S. Brar, Addl. AG, Haryana. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Appellants were tried by Addi$onal Sessions Judge, Fatehabad in a case arising out of FIR No.286 dated 24.11.2000 under Sec$on 18 of the NDPS Act registered at Police Sta$on Bhua, as they were found in possession of 1.500kg of opium. A4er trial, the appellants were convicted under Sec$on 18(c) of the NDPS Act vide judgment dated 20.05.2005 by the trial Court and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of ₹10,000/- each with default sentence of six months simple imprisonment in case of non-payment of fine. 2. Against the abovesaid convic$on and sentence, this appeal was filed. 3. Today learned counsel for the appellants stated at the outset that appellants do not press the appeal against the judgment of convic$on; and that appellants confine their prayer only against order of sentence. It is PRIYANKA 2025.04.29 10:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-1014-SB-2005 CRA-S-1029-SB-2005 submi?ed that appellants would be sa$sfied, in case they are sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by them. 4. Learned counsel points out that offence pertains to the year 2000; that appellant-Hawa Singh was of 26 years and appellant-Partap Singh was 25 years at that $me; that appellant-Hawa Singh has already undergone actual sentence of 01 year and 24 days and appellant-Partap Singh has already undergone actual sentence of 06 months and 24 days and are not involved in any other case and so, they deserve to be sentenced for the period already undergone by them. 5. Learned State counsel has not seriously objected to the aforesaid prayer. 6. The custody cer$ficate placed on record by the respondent- State would reveal that appellant-Hawa Singh has already undergone actual sentence of 01 year and 24 days and appellant-Partap Singh has already undergone actual sentence of 06 months and 24 days . It is revealed further that they have no criminal antecedents. Appellant-Hawa Singh was of 26 years and appellant-Partap Singh was 25 years at the $me of offence, which had taken place way back in 2000 i.e. 25 years back. 7. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it will be in the interest of jus$ce, if the period of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellants, instead of sending them behind bars in the company of hardened criminals. 8. Consequently, the present appeals are partly accepted. By maintaining the impugned judgment against convic$on, the order of sentence as passed by the trial Court is modified and the appellants are sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by them. As far as fine is concerned, it will remain same. 9. However, it is made clear that amount of fine, if not paid earlier, shall be deposited before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate p. 2 PRIYANKA 2025.04.29 10:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-1014-SB-2005 CRA-S-1029-SB-2005 concerned, within a period of four weeks from today, failing which the appellants will have to carry out the complete sentence as imposed by the trail Court. Disposed of. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of connected case. ( DEEPAK GUPTA ) JUDGE April 25, 2025 Pry Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes Whether Reportable No p. 3 PRIYANKA 2025.04.29 10:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document