IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 203 CRR-455-2011 (O&M) Date of Decision.:02.07.2025 Sardool Singh …..Pe22oner Vs. State of Punjab .….Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Ms. Simran Kaur, Advocate for Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate for the peoner. Ms. Prabha Bali, AAG, Punjab. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Peoner Sardool Singh was tried by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Paala in a case arising out of FIR No.538 dated 07.10.2003 under Secon 61(1)(c) of Punjab Excise Act registered at Police Staon Sadar, Paala. A9er trial, the peoner was convicted under Secon 61(1)(c) of Punjab Excise Act vide judgment dated 09.05.2007 by the trial Court and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of ₹5,000/- with default sentence of two months rigorous imprisonment in case of non-payment of fine. On appeal, the judgment of convicon and order of sentence were upheld by the Court of learned Addional Sessions Judge, Paala vide judgment dated 12.01.2011. 2. Against the abovesaid convicon and sentence, this peon was filed. 3. Today learned counsel for the peoner stated at the outset that peoner does not press the peon against the judgment of convicon; and that peoner confines his prayer only against order of sentence. It is submi@ed that peoner would be sasfied, in case he is sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by him. NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.07.02 16:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-455-2011 (O&M) 4. Learned counsel points out that offence pertains to the year 2003; that peoner has already undergone total sentence of 01 month and 03 days and is not involved in any other case and so, he deserves to be sentenced for the period 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 has already undergone total sentence of 01 month and 03 days. It is revealed further that he had no criminal antecedents. Nothing has been brought on record to suggest that a9er his convicon, peoner has been involved in any other case. 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 peon 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. 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. ( DEEPAK GUPTA ) JUDGE July 02, 2025 Neeka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.07.02 16:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document