S. No.216 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CRR No.1176 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision:21.04.2025 Pardeep Kumar @ Deepu .....Pe33oner Vs. State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Ms. Jyo Kaur, Advocate for Mr. R.D. Yadav, Advocate for the peoner. Mr. R.K.S. Brar, Addl. AG, Haryana. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (Oral) Peoner- Pardeep Kumar @ Deepu was tried by Ld. Judicial Magis- trate Ist Class, Rewari, in a case arising out of FIR No.35 dated 06.07.2001 under Secon 61/1/14 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 registered at Police Staon Rampura, Rewari, as he was found in possession of 1700 pouches of liquor. A=er trial, the peoner was convicted under Secon 61/1/14 of the Punjab Excise Act vide judgment of convicon dated 11.08.2007 by the trial Court and was sen- tenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of ₹2,000/- with default sentence of one month’s simple imprisonment in case of non-payment of fine vide order of sentence. On appeal, the judgment of convic- on and order of sentece were upheld by the Court of learned Addional Ses- sions Judge, Rewari vide judgment dated 04.07.2008. 2. Against the abovesaid orders, this appeal was filed. 3. Today learned counsel for the peoner stated at the outset that pe- oner do not press the revision against the judgment of convicon; and that pe- oner confine his prayer only against order of sentence. It is submiDed that pe- oner would be sasfied, in case he is sentenced to imprisonment for the pe- riod already undergone by him. RENU 2025.04.22 14:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRR No.1176 of 2008 (O&M) -2- 4. Learned counsel points out that offence pertains to the year 2001; that peoner was 30 years of age at the me of offence and he had already un- dergone total sentence of 12 days and so, he deserve to be sentenced for the pe- riod already undergone by him. 5. Learned State Counsel has not seriously objected to the aforesaid prayer. 6. The custody cerficate placed on record by the respondent-State would reveal that peoner had already undergone total sentence of 12 days. It is revealed further that peoner has no other criminal antecedents. He was of 30 years of age at the me of offence, which had taken place way back in 2001 i.e. 24 years back. 7. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it will be in the interest of jusce, if the period of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone by the peoner, instead of sending him behind bars in the company of hardened criminals. 8. Consequently, the present revision is partly accepted. By maintaining the impugned judgment against convicon, the order of sentence as passed by the trial Court is modified and the peoner 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 peoner will have to carry out the complete sentence as imposed by the trial Court. Disposed of. April 21, 2025 ( DEEPAK GUPTA ) renu JUDGE Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No RENU 2025.04.22 14:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh