Crl.Revision No.102 of 2003 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.Revision No.102 of 2003 Date of decision: 8.12.2010 Angrej Singh ... Petitioner versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH. Present: Mr.Sarla Chaudhary, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Dhruv Dayal, DAG, Haryana. ... JORA SINGH, J. Angrej Singh filed this Crl. Revision to impugn the judgment dated 24.9.2001 rendered passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, vide which appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 3.4.2001 by ACJM, Hisar, was dismissed. FIR No. 342 dated 28.6.2000 under Sections 8/9 of Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 (for short `the Act'), PS Civil Lines, Hisar, was registered on the allegation that petitioner was undergoing RI for 10 years in a case registered under the NDPS Act. On 18.5.2000, he was released on parole for 4 weeks with direction to surrender in jail on 16.6.2000 but he did not surrender in jail till 26.6.2000. In view of the complaint (Annexure PA) by Deputy Superintendent of Central Jail, Hisar, case was registered. After completion of investigation, challan was presented in Court. Petitioner was charged under Sections 8/9 of the Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Crl.Revision No.102 of 2003 2 Prosecution examined 3 witnesses. After close of the prosecution evidence, statement of the petitioner was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Petitioner stated that due to some unavoidable circumstances, he could not surrender in jail on the date fixed. Ultimately, petitioner was convicted under Section 9 of the Act and directed to undergo RI for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for 15 days. Appeal against the judgment dated 3.4.2001 was dismissed vide impugned judgment. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State counsel and have gone through the evidence on the file. After arguing for some time when learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment, then stated that under the NDPS Act, sentence was reduced from 10 years to 3 years by the Hon'ble High Court and after expiry of sentence on 4.10.2002, petitioner was released. In the present case also, petitioner was released on 4.6.2003. Argued that with the release of the petitioner after undergoing imprisonment as ordered by the trial Court, revision has become infructuous. Learned State counsel argued that evidence on the file was rightly scrutinized by the trial Court. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment. Petitioner was convicted and sentenced under Section 15 of the NDPS Act. While on parole, he failed to surrender in jail in time. After going through the evidence on the file, I am of the opinion that submission of learned State counsel is correct one. FIR No. Crl.Revision No.102 of 2003 3 233 dated 19.4.1997 under Section 15 of the NDPS Act was registered against the petitioner and he was directed to undergo RI for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-. Against the said judgment, appeal was preferred and as per order of the Hon'ble High Court, sentence was reduced from 10 years to 3 years. In FIR No. 342 dated 28.6.2000 under Sections 8/9 of the Act, petitioner was released after undergoing imprisonment as ordered. While on parole, petitioner failed to surrender in time. No explanation why he did not surrender after release on parole for 4 weeks. After scrutinizing evidence on the file, petitioner was rightly convicted. No reason to differ with the first Appellate Court. As per custody certificate, petitioner has already undergone one year, five months and one day. He belongs to poor family. While on parole, he failed to surrender in time. Keeping in view the facts of the case, I take lenient view and direct the petitioner to undergo imprisonment already undergone (one year, five months and one day ). Fine maintained. Revision without merit is dismissed with modification on the point of sentence. 8.12.2010 ( JORA SINGH ) pk JUDGE