S. No.341 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CRA-S-234-SB of 2006 (O&M) Date of Decision:25.04.2025 Melo .....Appellant Vs. The State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. S.S. Gill, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Rajiv K. Takkar, DAG, Punjab. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (Oral) Appellant- Melo was tried by Ld. Special Court, Sangrur in a case aris- ing out of FIR No.118 dated 10.10.2002 under Sec/on 15 of the NDPS Act regis- tered at Police Sta/on City Khanauri, as he was found in possession of 6 Kg of poppy husk. A2er trial, the appellant was convicted under Sec/on 15 of the NDPS Act vide judgment dated 24.01.2006 by the trial Court and was sentenced to un- dergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay fine of ₹200/- with default sentence of 01 month 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 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. 4. Learned counsel points out that offence pertains to the year 2002; that appellant was of 27 years at that /me; that appellant had already undergone sentence of more than one month as per the applica/on dated 02.02.2006 RENU 2025.04.28 10:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA-S-234-SB of 2006 (O&M) -2- moved under Sec/on 389 Cr.P.C. and so, he deserve to be sentenced for the pe- riod already undergone by him. 5. Learned State Counsel has not disputed the afore-said custody period undergone by the appellant. 6. Although custody cer/ficate has not been placed on record but pe- rusal of the applica/on dated 02.02.2006 moved under Sec/on 389 Cr.P.C would reveal that appellant had already undergone sentence of more than one month . He was of 27 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. 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 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 25, 2025 ( DEEPAK GUPTA ) renu JUDGE Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No RENU 2025.04.28 10:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh