CRA No.350-SB 2001 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA No.350-SB of 2001 Date of decision : 24.12.2010 Parvinder Singh ...Appellant Versus State of Haryana …Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN **** Present: Mr. K S Dhaliwal, Advocate, and Ms. Savita Tanwar, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Kshitij Sharma, AAG, Haryana. **** JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (ORAL) 1. The appellant was convicted under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and a fine of ` 1,00,000 or in default, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year, vide judgment and order dated 16.02.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, as he was found in possession of 7 ½ Kgs. of Poppy Husk. 2. The present appeal was admitted on 22.3.2001 and the appellant was enlarged on bail by the Court vide order dated 23.5.2001. Thereafter, the matter was taken up on various dates. 3. On 10.12.2010, learned counsel for the appellant informed this Court that the appellant has since died and the learned State CRA No.350-SB 2001 -2- counsel had sought time to verify the assertion made by the learned counsel for the appellant. 4. Today, learned counsel for the State has filed certificate dated 24.12.2010 attested by SHO Jaswinder Singh, Police Station Munak, District Sangrur, which is taken on record as ‘Mark A’. As per the said certificate, the appellant died in a road accident at Karnal on 5.7.2009. However, no death certificate was obtained in this regard. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant was a rickshaw puller and did not own any asset, and therefore, has not left any estate out of which the fine imposed by the learned trial Court could be realized. 6. The fact of the appellant being a rickshaw puller is duly reflected in the judgment passed by the learned trial Court. A reading of the certificate, Mark ‘A’, further reveals that the wife of the appellant has also since died. It evokes sympathy for the appellant who was a young man and died in a road accident. The nature has dealt with him in an appropriate manner for his conduct in dealing with the business of contraband. 7. In the circumstances, even if the fine imposed upon the appellant is not paid, there is none who could be sent behind the bars. At the most, the amount of fine could be recovered from the estate left by the deceased-appellant, which is none in the instant case. In my view, it is a fit case for showing compassion to the appellant’s family by exonerating it from its liability to pay the fine. 8. Resultantly, it is expected that the authorities would not take any steps to recover the amount of fine either from the estate, if at all left behind by the deceased-appellant or from his legal heirs. CRA No.350-SB 2001 -3- 9. The appeal is accordingly abated. 24.12.2010 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE Note : Whether to be referred to reporter : Yes / No