Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sham Lal vs State Of Punjab on 5 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:046445
CRA-S-3237-2023 (O&M) -1- 2024:PHHC:046445
112+241
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRA-S-3237-2023 (O&M)
Date of decision: 05.04.2024
SHAM LAL ....Appellant.
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB ....Respondent.
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY
Present:- Mr. Sandeep Verma, Advocate,
for the applicant-appellant.
Mr. Harpreet Singh, Addl. AG, Punjab.
*****
SANJIV BERRY, J. (ORAL)
CRM-46396-2023
1. The instant application preferred by the applicant under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 3687
days in filing of the present appeal on the ground that the petitioner
could not file the appeal in time because he was already in custody in
some other case and being a poor man could not contact his counsel.
2. Heard.
3. Keeping in view the averments made in the application
seeking condonation of delay of 3687 days in filing the present appeal,
the same is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
4. Application stands disposed of.
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:046445
CRA-S-3237-2023 (O&M) -2- 2024:PHHC:046445
Main appeal
1. Instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 27.07.2012, passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge-Cum-Judge Special Court (under NDPS
Act, 1985), Ferozepur, whereby the appellant had been held guilty in
case FIR No.72 dated 05.05.2010, under Sections 15 and 18 of the
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, (for short, 'the
NDPS Act') registered at Police Station Sadar Abohar, Appellant was
sentenced as under: -
Name of Offence Period of sentence Period of sentence in
convict and fine imposed default of payment of
fine.
Sham Lal 15 and 18 of the RI for 06 months with RI for 15 days.
NDPS Act a fine of ₹ 2000/-
2. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid conviction and order of
sentence, appellant has preferred the present appeal.
3. It has been inter alia contended by learned counsel for the
petitioner at the very outset that the petitioner does not challenge the
finding recorded by the learned trial Court in the judgment of
conviction dated 27.07.2012 but his only limited prayer is for seeking
modification of the order of sentence dated 27.07.2012 passed by the
learned trial Court (supra) by submitting that the petitioner has already
undergone more than 5 months in custody and petitioner is ready to
deposit the fine, as such he prayed that the period already undergone
by he petitioner in custody may be treated as sentence undergone and
the impugned order of sentence be modified accordingly.
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:046445
CRA-S-3237-2023 (O&M) -3- 2024:PHHC:046445
4. Learned State Counsel has produced the custody certificate
dated 04.04.2024 to contend that the appellant has already undergone
more than 05 months out of the total sentence of 6 months awarded to
him.
5. After hearing the arguments advanced by learned counsel
for the parties, it transpires that although the learned counsel for the
appellant has not challenged the genuineness of the impugned
judgment of conviction dated 27.07.2012 but yet from the perusal of
the impugned judgment, it transpires that it is based on correct
appreciation of evidence on record and is not suffered from any
infirmity so as to call for any interference. As a consequent the
conviction recorded vide judgment dated 27.07.2012 by learned
Additional Sessions Judge-Cum-Judge Special Court Ferozepur against
the appellant is hereby upheld.
6. Coming to the limited request raised by the learned
counsel for the appellant in this case seeking modification of order of
sentence dated 27.07.2012, admittedly, the appellant had been in
custody in other case after his conviction and order of sentence passed
in the present case and as per the custody certificate, he had spent the
period from 17.05.2012 to 08.12.2023 as conviction in the other case.
Further, as per the custody certificate, the appellant has already
undergone more than 5 months and 26 days of actual custody,
therefore, in these circumstances considering the fact that the appellant
has already undergone 5 months and 26 of actual custody out of 6
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:046445
CRA-S-3237-2023 (O&M) -4- 2024:PHHC:046445
months awarded vide the impugned order of sentence dated
27.07.2012, it is deemed a fit case where order of sentence can be
modified, as no minimum sentence is prescribed for the said offence
for which appellant has been convicted.
7. Resultantly, in the circumstances of the case, the impugned
order of sentence dated 27.07.2012 is modified to the period already
undergone by the appellant in custody, therefore, the present appeal is
disposed of with the modification in the impugned order of sentence
dated 27.07.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-
Judge, Special Court, Ferozepur, thereby reducing the sentence of the
appellant to the already undergone custody period by him subject to
payment of ₹2,000/- as fine imposed vide impugned order dated
27.07.2012 in default of the payment of fine he has to further undergo
simple imprisonment for 15 days.
8. Pending application(s), if any, shall stands disposed of.
(SANJIV BERRY)
05.04.2024 JUDGE
Gyan
i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No
ii) Whether reportable? Yes/No
4 of 4
