IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 204 CRA-S-2218-SB-2009 (O&M) Date of Decision:-27.03.2025 BALBIR SINGH @ BIRI …..Appellant Vs. State of Punjab .….Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- None for the appellant. Mr. Neeraj Madaan, Sr. DAG, Punjab. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Appellant was tried by Ld. Special Court, Nawanshahr in a case arising out of FIR No.401 dated 22.11.2003 under Sec,on 15 of the NDPS Act registered at Police Sta,on Banga, as he was found in possession of 05 Kg of poppy husk. A1er trial, the appellant was convicted under Sec,on 15 of the NDPS Act vide judgment dated 10.09.2009 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 one month 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 a1er 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. PRIYANKA 2025.03.28 15:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-2218-SB-2009 (O&M) -2- 4. However as far as the impugned order of sentence is concerned it is no,ced that appellant was sentenced for a period of for a period of one year and to pay fine of ₹500/- with default sentence of one month rigorous imprisonment in case of non-payment of fine for keeping in possession of 5 Kg poppy husk. 5. The custody cer,ficate placed on record by the respondent- State would reveal that appellant has already undergone actual custody sentence of 01 month and 27 days. Custody cer,ficate further indicates that appellant is involved in one more case bearing FIR No.60 of 2015 registered under Sec,on 15 of the NDPS Act at Police Sta,on Nawanshahar, in which his sentence has already undergone on 31.08.2016. Although the appellant has not placed on record any affidavit in terms of order dated 23.07.2024 but custody cer,ficate indicates that sentence of the pe,,oner in another case, has already undergone on 31.08.2016. 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. As far as fine is concerned, it will remain same. Disposed of. ( DEEPAK GUPTA ) JUDGE March 27, 2025 Pry Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes Whether Reportable No PRIYANKA 2025.03.28 15:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document