Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pushpinder Singh Alias Tinku vs State Of Punjab on 3 July, 2024
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:082267
CRA-S-911-2024 (O&M) -1 -
236 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRA-S-911-2024 (O&M)
DECIDED ON: 03.07.2024
PUSHPINDER SINGH @ TINKU
.....APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB
.....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL.
Present: Mr. Rituraj Singh, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. J.S. Rattu, DAG, Punjab.
*****
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
CRM-10691-2024
Prayer in the present application is for suspension of sentence of
the applicant/appellant during the pendency of present appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellant prays for withdrawal of the
present application. He further prays for listing the main appeal for final
hearing.
Prayer is accepted.
Dismissed as withdrawn.
CRA-S-911-2024
1. With the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties, the
main appeal is taken on board for final hearing.
2. The instant appeal has been preferred by appellant-Pushpinder
Singh @ Tinku, challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:082267
CRA-S-911-2024 (O&M) -2 -
dated 01.02.2024 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur whereby he
has been convicted for commission of offence under Section 22 of NDPS Act
and has been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 1 years along with fine of
Rs.5,000/- and in default thereof, to further undergo RI for one month.
3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellant contends that he
does not want to challenge the conviction of the appellant on merits. However,
he submits that in view of the circumstances of the case, the sentence awarded
by the trial Court is on higher side.
4. Here it would be pertinent to mention that the appellant did not
challenge his conviction on merits and only confined his relief qua quantum of
sentence. This Court has also scrutinized the impugned judgment as well as the
relevant documents/evidence and is of the considered view that there is no
scope for any interference in impugned judgment as far as the conviction of the
appellant is concerned. As such, the conviction of the appellant is upheld.
5. As far as quantum of sentence is concerned, there are mitigating
circumstances to take a lenient view in the matter of sentence awarded by the
trial court. Apart from the fact that the appellant has already faced the agony of
protracted trial for more than 5 years, who is the sole breadwinner of his family.
The appellant has already undergone the actual sentence for a period of six
months and seven days, out of total substantive sentence of 1 year. Thus, this
court is of the considered view that a chance be given to the appellant to reform
& improve himself; to become a good citizen; and to lead a peaceful &
harmonious life. Though, it is evident that the appellant is also involved in
three more cases out of which in two cases he is on bail and in one case, he has
been convicted and sentenced to undergo RI for a period two years in case FIR
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:082267
CRA-S-911-2024 (O&M) -3 -
No. 110, dated 18.095.2021, under Sections 21 and 29 NDPS Act, registered at
Police Station Model Town Hoshiarpur, as is evident from the custody
certificate filed by learned State counsel today in Court.
6. Taking into consideration the above narrated discussion as well as
the fact that the appellant has not challenged his conviction on merits, while
affirming his conviction, the order of sentence is modified to the extent to the
period already undergone by him with no change in fine clause.
7. With the aforesaid modification in the quantum of sentence, the
present appeal stands disposed off.
8. The appellant is ordered to be released forthwith in case he is not
required in any other case.
(SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
03.07.2024 JUDGE
sham
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
