IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM M-8923 of 2010 Date of Decision:9.5.2011 Sukhdev Singh .... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .... Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. Krishan Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sidharth Sarup, D.A.G. Haryana. **** 1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the impugned warrant of recovery of fine dated 1.9.2009 (P-3) issued by Addl. Sessions Judge, Sirsa, whereby the Collector, Hanumangarh (Rajasthan) has been authorized to recover the amount of fine as arrears of land Revenue from the movable or immovable property of the petitioner. An FIR No.50 dated 1.2.1990 under Section 18 of the NDPS Act was registered against the petitioner in the Police Station Sadar Dabwali. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sirsa, c onvicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 18 of the NDPS Act on 4.2.1992 and awarded the sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-. In case of non payment of fine the petitioner shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for period of another two years. The petitioner had filed an appeal against the said order, CRM M-8923 of 2010 -2- which stands dismissed. Even, the appeal filed before Hon'ble the Supreme Court was also dismissed . As such the petitioner, after the dismissal of the appeal, surrendered in District Jail Sirsa to undergo remaining part of his sentence. The petitioner is still undergoing the said sentence awarded to him. There is no dispute with the fact that if the petitioner does not pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, he has to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. In such circumstances, the fine amount needs not to be paid. Whereas, while the petitioner has yet to complete the sentence of 10 years, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, vide his order dated 1.9.2009 (P-3) has issued warrants of recovery with respect to the fine of Rs.1,00,000/- to be paid by him as part of the sentence. Thus, the recovery proceedings are premature. In the judgment rendered in the case of Bhargavan Pillai v. State of Kerala and others 2000(2) RCR (Crl.) 59, it was held that the recovery of fine imposed in a criminal case would be premature till the accused has not undergone whole of such imprisonment for default of fine. In case the accused exercise his option to undergo the sentence in case he is not in a position to pay the fine, in such circumstances, the realization of the fine arises only if the accused has not undergone the whole of such imprisonment in default. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and recovery of fine of Rs.1 lac vide order dated 1.9.2009 (P-3) is hereby set aside being premature. 9.5.2011 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE