IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 14827 of 2008. Date of Decision: 23rd March, 2009. Smt. Kamla Devi ....Petitioner through Mr. R.M.Singh, Advocate Versus State of Haryana & Ors. .Respondents through Mr. R.D.Sharma, Sr. DAG, Haryana Mr. Hemen Aggarwal, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 13.6.2008 [Annexure P-3] passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani whereby an application moved by respondent No. 3 to allow her to deposit the balance sale consideration and for issuance of a Sale Certificate has been accepted and the objections petition filed by the petitioner, has been dismissed. Briefly stated, the facts are that the husband of the petitioner [ late Hoshiar Singh ] was convicted on 3.8.1996 under Section 15/61/85 of the N.D.P.S.Act, 1985 and was sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years along with a fine of Rs. One Lac and in case of default in payment of fine, he was required to further undergo RI for one year. Hoshiar Singh completed the sentence of ten years RI on 30.9.2004. Since he failed to deposit the fine of Rs. One lac, he started undergoing the further sentence of One Year RI in lieu thereof w.e.f. 1.5.2004. While Hoshiar Singh was undergoing the further sentence of one year RI, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani appears to have directed the Collector, Sonepat to initiate recovery proceedings by treating the amount of fine of Rs. One Lac as arrears of land revenue. Hoshiar Singh unfortunately expired on 10.1.2005 while in custody. In this manner, he had already undergone actual sentence of 8 months and 10 days out of the one year RI awarded in lieu of non-payment of fine. Pursuant to the directions issued by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani to the Collector, Sonepat, one acre land owned by the deceased Hoshiar Singh was put to auction on 18.4.2007 and respondent No. 3 is claimed to have offered the highest bid of Rs.4,40,000/- for the said land. The petitioner [who is widow of Hoshiar Singh] came to know about the recovery proceedings on 18.4.2007 only when the auction was held. On the very next day, i.e., 19.4.2007, she moved an application to permit her to deposit the fine of Rs. One Lac imposed on her late husband. That application was allowed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani vide order dated 18.7.2007 and the amount of fine was accordingly deposited by the petitioner. Meanwhile, respondent No. 3 moved an application before the CJM, Bhiwani to permit her to deposit the balance sale consideration and for issuance of Sale Certificate in her favour. The petitioner filed her objections against the said auction, inter-alia, on the grounds that firstly, no fine was recoverable as her husband was put to undergo sentence in lieu thereof, secondly, he had actually undergone sentence of over eight months before his death; and thirdly, she had already been granted permission and deposited the amount of fine on 19.7.2007. The learned CJM, however, vide his impugned order has dismissed the petitioner's objections and has allowed the application of respondent No. 3 permitting her to deposit the balance sale consideration for issuance of the Sale Certificate. Notice of motion was issued and pursuant thereto, the Collector, Sonepat has filed his reply/affidavit. No reply has been filed by respondent No. 3 despite several opportunities. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and on perusal of the impugned order, I am of the considered view that the writ petition deserves to be allowed. The custody certificate dated 8.7.2008 [Annexure P-1] clearly depicts that the deceased-convict had completed the 10 years' RI on 30.4.2004. There is no denial to the fact that he continued to undergo the sentence till his death on 8.1.2005. The sentence period undergone by the deceased from 1.5.2004 to 8.1.2005 was obviously towards the sentence of one year awarded in the event of his failure to pay the fine of Rs. One Lac. That being so, the very action of the CJM in initiating the recovery proceedings and issuing directions to that effect to the Collector, Sonepat, is untenable. Be that as it may, it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner had any knowledge regarding initiation of recovery proceedings by the Collector, Sonepat on the recommendations of the CJM, Bhiwani. After the death of her husband, she came to know of those proceedings only when auction was held on 18.4.2007. On the very next day, i.e., 19.4.2007, she sought and was granted permission to deposit the amount of fine. The petitioner deposited the amount of fine on 19.7.2007. Having allowed her to deposit the fine, it was too late to turn down the petitioner's objections against the impugned auction. In a way, the learned CJM has passed contradictory orders. No indefeasible right accrued in favour of respondent No. 3 merely because she was the highest bidder in the auction which was palpably illegal. For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 13.6.23008 [Annexure P-3] is set aside. As a consequence thereto, the auction held on 18.4.2007 is also set aside. Respondent No. 3 shall be at liberty to withdraw the entire amount deposited by her towards the sale of the subject land and the same shall be refunded to her within two weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is received. If the auction amount deposited by respondent No. 3 was lying in some Bank, the interest accrued thereon, shall also be paid to her. Since the deceased – convict had already undergone a substantial part of the additional RI of one year awarded in lieu of default in payment of fine and he died while undergoing the remainder of sentence, the recovery of fine as well from his legal heirs tantamounts to double jeopardy and can not sustain either in law or equity. The amount of Rs. One Lac deposited by the petitioner towards fine recoverable from her deceased husband, therefore, is directed to be refunded to her within one month. Disposed of. March 23, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE