Partly allowed¶24

Pardeep v. State of Hry.

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Jul 2025CRA-S/1996/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Deepak Gupta, J., decided 18.07.2025) in CRA-S-1996-SB-2006: conviction under S.25(1b) Arms Act (FIR No.192 dated 05.08.2001, PS Narnaund; Sections 307/324 IPC; ASJ Hisar judgment dated 13.09.2006) upheld; sentence of two years' RI reduced to period already undergone (06 months 27 days); fine of Rs. 5,000/- retained with four-week deposit condition; appeal partly allowed and disposed of; appellant unrepresented.

What did the court decide?

Appeal partly accepted: conviction maintained; sentence of imprisonment reduced to the period already undergone (06 months 27 days); fine of Rs. 5,000/- retained, to be deposited within four weeks if not already paid, failing which the complete trial-court sentence is to be served. ¶24

Pardeep Vs State of Hry. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial Court's conviction of the appellant under Section 25(1b) of the Arms Act calls for interference by this Court. +1 more

¶18

Court's answer

The conviction under Section 25(1b) of the Arms Act is maintained; the Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction as it was recorded after proper appreciation of the evidence on record.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

The order of sentence is modified: imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant (06 months and 27 days) instead of sending him behind bars; the fine remains the same.

¶24

Key takeaways

Any fine not paid earlier shall be deposited before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned within four weeks, failing which the appellant will have to carry out the complete sentence as imposed by the trial Court.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal appeal (CRA-S-1996-SB-2006) against conviction under S. 25(1b) Arms Act arising out of FIR No.192 dated 05.08.2001, P.S. Narnaund (Sections 307/324 IPC and Section 25 Arms Act); appellant convicted vide judgment dated 13.09.2006 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, and sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/- with five months' simple imprisonment in default. None appeared for the appellant. Held: conviction was recorded after proper appreciation of evidence and is maintained; custody certificate shows the appellant had already undergone 06 months 27 days and is not involved in any other criminal case; sentence modified to the period already undergone; fine retained, to be deposited within four weeks, failing which the complete trial-court sentence is to be carried out. Appeal partly accepted and disposed of. Non-reportable.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

¶3

376

¶4

CRA-S-1996-SB-2006

¶5

Date of Decision:-18.07.2025

PARDEEP

…..APPELLANT

Vs.

STATE OF HARYANA

….RESPONDENT

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

¶12

Present:None for the appellant.

¶13

Mr. R.K.S. Brar, Addl. AG, Haryana.

¶14

¶15

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

¶16

Appellant was tried by Ld. Addi�onal Sessions Judge, Hisar in a case arising out of FIR No.192 dated 05.08.2001 under Sec�on 307/324 IPC and Sec�on 25 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Sta�on Narnaund. A�er trial, the appellant was convicted under Sec�on 25 (1b)of the Amrs Act vide judgment dated 13.09.2006 by the trial Court and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of ₹5,000/- with default sentence of five months simple imprisonment in case of non-payment of fine.

¶17

Against the abovesaid convic�on and sentence, this appeal was filed.

¶18

Today nobody is appearing on behalf of the appellant. This Court has gone through the impugned judgment of the trial Court and finds that convic�on has been recorded a�er proper apprecia�on of the evidence on record. This Court does not find any reason so as to interfere in the impugned judgment of convic�on and as such, the same is hereby maintained.

¶19

However as far as the impugned order of sentence is concerned, it is no�ced that appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of ₹5,000/- with default sentence of five months simple imprisonment in case of non-payment of fine.

¶20

PRIYANKA 2025.07.18 17:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

CRA-S-1996-SB-2006

¶22

The custody cer�ficate placed on record by the respondent-State would reveal that appellant has already undergone total sentence of 06 months and 27 days and he is not involved in any other criminal case, so he deserves to be sentenced for the period already undergone by him.

¶23

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it will be in the interest of jus�ce, if the period of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant, instead of sending him behind bars in the company of hardened criminals.

¶24

Consequently, the present appeal is partly accepted. By maintaining the impugned judgment against convic�on, the order of sentence as passed by the trial Court is modified and the appellant is sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by him. As far as fine is concerned, it will remain the same.

¶25

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 appellants will have to carry out the complete sentence as imposed by the trial Court.

¶26

Disposed of.

¶27

(DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes Whether Reportable No

¶28

July 18, 2025 Pry

¶29

PRIYANKA 2025.07.18 17:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶30

Page 2 of 2

Pardeep v. State of Hry.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pardeep v. State of Hry.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Roop Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab

Roop Wati and Anr. Vs Birma Devi

Gurudwara Managing Committee Vs Gram Panchayat Umarpur

Kamlesh Rani Vs Hy. State

Rattan Singh Vs State of Punjab

Amardeep Vs State of Haryana