103 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-13075-2025 in/and CRA-S-2276-SB-2009 Date of Decision: April 09, 2025 Sukhdev Singh … Appellant Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Ms. Puja Chopra, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Rajeev K. Takkar, DAG, Punjab. DEEPAK GUPTA , J.(Oral) CRM-13075-2025 This is an applica#on to place on record the original affidavit dated 26.03.2025 of the appellant in compliance of the order dated 30.01.2024 as Annexure A-1. Allowed. Annexure A-1 is taken on record. CRA-S-2276-SB-2009 Appellant – Sukhdev Singh @ Sukha was tried by learned Judge, Special Court, Ferozepur, in a case arising out of FIR No.128 dated 30.07.2002, under Sec#on 18 of the NDPS Act registered at Police Sta#on Khuian Sarwar, as he was found in possession of 800 grams of opium. A:er trial, the appellant was convicted under Sec#on 18 of the NDPS Act vide judgment dated 09.09.2009 by the trial Court and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of ₹25,000/- with default sentence of 04 months rigorous 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 does not press the appeal against the judgment of convic#on; and that appellant confines his prayer only against the order of sentence. It is submi?ed that appellant would be sa#sfied, in case he is sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by him. Sarita Rani 2025.04.09 16:11 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CRM-13075-2025 in/and CRA-S-2276-SB-2009 2025:PHHC:049313 - 2 - 4. Learned counsel points out that offence pertains to the year 2002; that appellant was young person of 26 years at that #me; that appellant has already undergone actual sentence of 06 months and 11 days and is not involved in any other case and so, he deserves to be sentenced for the period already undergone by him. 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 has already undergone actual custody sentence of 06 months and 11 days. It is revealed further that he has no criminal antecedents. Nothing has been brought on record to suggest that a:er this convic#on, appellant has been involved in any other case. He was young boy of 26 years of age at the #me of offence, which had taken place way back in 2002 i.e. 23 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. 9. 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. April 09, 2025 (DEEPAK GUPTA) sarita JUDGE Whether reasoned/speaking: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No Sarita Rani 2025.04.09 16:11 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order