ORDER : When this appeal was heard on 13th May, 2015, learned Additional Solicitor General, took a month's time to get instructions whether the appellant has already undergone the entire sentence awarded to him. Today, when this appeal was called Mr. Abhay Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the learned Additional Solicitor General placed before us a Report dated 22nd July, 2015 from the office of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence addressed to the Assistant Commissioner, Directorate of Legal Affairs, CBEC, with number of enclosures. One of the communication dated 11th June, 2015, addressed to the Additional Solicitor General reveals that as per the Custody Certificate dated 13th May, 2015 of the Superintendent, Central Jail, Amritsar, the appellant had undergone the sentence for 7 years 9 months and 21 days in the present case and that he was released on bail on 17th February, 2009 based on the orders of the High Court at Chandigarh in CRWP NO. 1157 of 2006 and learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar, vide Order No. 154 dated 17th February, 2009. That apart the said communication also revealed that the appellant was lodged in Central Jail, Amritsar. On 7th July, 2014 in connection with certain other cases booked by Punjab Police at Goindwal Sahib Police Station on 29th June, 2014 for offences under Sections 21, 61 and 85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 as well as for offences under Sections 25, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act. The said communication is taken on record. 2. In fact, there is no representation for the appellant before us. 3. In the case on hand, we find that while convicting the appellant for offences under Sections 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act, he was imposed with a punishment of 14 years for the offence under Section 21 and 10 years for the offence under Section 29 apart from fine amount of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One lakh fifty thousand) and Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh) respectively with the usual default clause to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. The sentences awarded were to run concurrently. Therefore, subject to the payment of fine or to suffer default sentences, the appellant has to undergo a period of 14 years rigorous imprisonment. It was in the above stated background, learned Additional Solicitor General wanted time to get instructions on 13th May, 2015 when this appeal was listed. 4. The sentences awarded were to run concurrently. Therefore, subject to the payment of fine or to suffer default sentences, the appellant has to undergo a period of 14 years rigorous imprisonment. It was in the above stated background, learned Additional Solicitor General wanted time to get instructions on 13th May, 2015 when this appeal was listed. 4. As far as the bail granted to the appellant by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar, is concerned, we find that without any reference to the pendency of this appeal, the order seems to have been passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 17th October, 2009 granting bail to the appellant based on general order passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in Criminal revision No. 1157 of 2006 in the order dated 10th August, 2007. Inasmuch as now, it is reported that the appellant was subsequently taken into custody on 7th July, 2014 for committing offence under the NDPS Act and Arms Act lodged with the Goindwal Sahib Police Station on 21st June, 2014 and that in between 17th February, 2009 and 7th July, 2014, the appellant was at large based on the orders of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar dated 17th February, 2009, there is no scope to conclude that the appellant could have suffered the entire period of sentence imposed on him in this case. Moreover, we find that there is no representation for the appellant before us. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal for default.