Criminal Revision No.2454 of 2008 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Criminal Revision No.2454 of 2008
Date of decision: 03.02. 2009
Kulwant Singh
......Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
.......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr. Pardeep Kumar Bajaj, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr.Aman Deep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab.
****
SABINA, J.
Kulwant Singh-petitioner was convicted for an offence
under Section 61 (1) (a) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (“the Act”- for
short) and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one
year and a fine of Rs.1,000/- by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,
Barnala vide judgment dated 24.7.2007. Aggrieved by the same, the
petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed vide
judgment dated 22.9.2007 by the Additional Sessions Judge,
Barnala. Hence, the present revision petition.
Criminal Revision No.2454 of 2008 2
Prosecution case, as noticed by the Appellate Court in
para 2 of its judgment, is reproduced herein below:-
“The facts as put forth by the prosecution are that on
31.3.2005, HC Daljit Singh along with fellow police
officials were patrolling and present at bus stand of village
Tajoke, at about 7.00 p.m., he received a secret
information to the effect that the accused is carrying
liquor in a Tata Sumo bearing registration No. HR-
44A/3377 and coming towards to village and if a
nakabandi is held, the accused can be apprehended and
heavy quantity of liquor can be recovered form him .
Relying upon the information, ruqa was recorded and
dispatched to the police station and a nakabandi was held
at ‘T’ point of village Rereke Khurd. Meanwhile, the
aforesaid vehicle was spotted and it was signaled to stop.
The identity of the accused was verified. From the search
of the vehicle, 10 boxes of liquor marked DSP were
recovered from it. Each box contained 12 bottles 180 ml
liquor was taken out as sample from each bottle. The
sample parcels and the bottles containing remaining
liquor were sealed with the seal bearing impression “:DS”
and the incriminating articles were taken into possession
vide separate recovery memo”.
During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the
Criminal Revision No.2454 of 2008 3
petitioner has not challenged the conviction of the petitioner under
Section 61 of the Act. He has only challenged the sentence of
imprisonment awarded to the petitioner by the Courts below.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
wife of the petitioner was suffering from a serious disease and was
under treatment. Mother of the petitioner was also suffering from
neurological disease. He has further submitted that the petitioner
has already undergone more than six months of the actual sentence
and his sentence of imprisonment be reduced to as already
undergone by him. The fine imposed by the trial Court has already
been deposited by the petitioner.
Keeping in view the submissions made by learned
counsel for the petitioner and examining the facts and circumstances
of the case, it would be just and expedient to reduce the sentence of
imprisonment of the petitioner to as already undergone by him.
Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioner under Section
61 (1) (a) of the Act is maintained. However, the sentence of
imprisonment is reduced to as already undergone by him. With this
modification, the present revision petition is disposed of.
(SABINA)
JUDGE
February 03, 2009
anita