JUDGMENT Mr. Paramjeet Singh, J.: (Oral) - CRM-8021 of 2015 This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. with a prayer to condone the delay of 451 days in filing the present appeal. 2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and for the reasons mentioned in the application and also keeping in view the fact that by delay the applicant is nothing to gain, the application is allowed. Delay of 451 days in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned. Main case 3. Custody certificate of the applicant-appellant, filed in Court today, is taken on record. 4. Present criminal appeal has been preferred by the petitioner against judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.10.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 years with fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to pay fine to further undergo imprisonment for three months under Section 22 of NDPS Act in FIR No.48 dated 06.07.2012, registered at Police Station Maqboolpura, Amritsar. 5. I need not dilate upon the facts of this case in detail as the same have already been recapitulated in the judgment of the learned Court below and in view of the ultimate prayer of the petitioner seeking reduction in sentence. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant states that he is not pressing this appeal on merit and is not challenging the conviction on merit. He is only aggrieved against the sentence part. However, he prays that sentence of the petitioner may be suitably reduced as this criminal trial is hanging on his head like damocle’s sword for more than 2½ years and it should be a sufficient mitigating circumstance to treat him leniently. Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the FIR pertains of the year 2012 and since then a period of more than 2½ years has elapsed. The petitioner has suffered the ordeal for long period. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant further contends that the applicant-appellant has already undergone the sentence for 2 years, 2 months and 27 days. 8. Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the FIR pertains of the year 2012 and since then a period of more than 2½ years has elapsed. The petitioner has suffered the ordeal for long period. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant further contends that the applicant-appellant has already undergone the sentence for 2 years, 2 months and 27 days. 8. In view of the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, which have been noted above, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars further as the petitioner faced ordeal for more than 2½ years. It is a fit case wherein sentence awarded to the applicant-appellant can be reduced to already undergone. Ordered accordingly. The impugned judgment of conviction and orders of sentence, including default clause, stand affirmed with aforesaid modification. It goes without saying that if the amount of fine is not deposited, the petitioner will serve the default sentence. 9. With the observations made above, present criminal appeal is disposed of with a direction that the applicant-appellant be released immediately, if not required in any other case. ———————