ORDER
R.L. Khurana, J.
1. The petitioner, Liak Ram, hereinafter referred to as the accused stands convicted by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nahan, in Cr. Case No. 14/1 of 1996/95, vide judgment dated 24-10-1997 for the offence under Section 61 (1) (c) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914, as applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh, and sentenced to simple imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 2000/-. In default of fine, the accused has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of three months.
2. The learned Sessions Judge, Nahan, vide his impugned judgment dated 22-7-1998, while maintaining the conviction of the accused, modified and reduced the sentence to simple imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 2000/-. In default of fine, simple imprisonment for one month was imposed.
3. Feeling aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed upon him, the accused is before this Court by way of the present revision petition.
4. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case for these. On 1-1-1995, Sub Inspector Sant Ram (PW 7) of Police Station Renukaji, along with Constable Gursharan was present in the area of Bhatgarh Dharla in connection with routine patrolling. At about 1.30 p.m. he received a secret information to the effect that the accused was indulging in distillation of illicit liquor and that he had installed a working still at his house. Finding the information to be reliable, he recorded the Rukka Ex. PW 5/A and sent the same to the Police Station for registration of the case. Thereafter, he constituted a raiding party PW 1, Ran Singh and PW 2 Pharu Ram were associated in such raiding party. A raid was then conducted at the house of the accused in village Bhatgarh (Dharla) and during the course of search, the accused was found distilling illicit liquor by operating a working still in his kitchen. The hearth was burning. The aluminum container Ex P 1 was placed on the hearth. On the top of this container was placed one round wooden frame and another small container Ex.P5 was placed on it, which contained water. The wooden frame was filled with one rubber tube Ex.P6. The fire was burning with the help of fuel-wood Ex. P7 and liquor on being distilled was being collected in the bottle Ex.P3 through the rubber tube. The working still was dismantled and after cooling down was seized and taken into possession vide memo Ex.P2 1/B. Plastic can Ex. P 2 was also recovered. This can was being used for collection of the illicit liquor, which was also taken into possession after following the procedure of sealing and sampling. Fifteen Kgs. of Lahan found in the containers Ex PI was got tested from Excise Inspector PW Rakesh Gautam and thereafter sealed and taken into possession.
5. On a case having been found against the accused, he was arrested, challaned and sent up for trial. The accused pleaded not guilty. His case is that of denial simpliciter. Upon trial, the accused was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid.
6. The two independent witnesses joined in the present case as members of the raiding party are PW 1 Ran Singh and PW 2 Pharu Ram. Both of them, though declared hostile, have corroborated and supported the prosecution story in its entirety about the accused having been found distilling illicit liquor with the help of a working still in the kitchen of his hoyse and the recovery of various items of such working still.
7. Nothing could be brought on the record by the accused during the course of cross-examination of these two independent witnesses or otherwise which might have cast a shadow of doubt on the truthfulness of the version of these two witnesses. Even the testimony of PW 7 Sub Inspector Sant Ram, the Investigation Officer could not be shattered by the accused.
8. It is significant to note that the accused in answer to question No. 4 of his statement recorded under Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, has not denied that the material used in illicit distillation by way of a working still, namely, Ex.PI to P5 found in his possession were seized and taken into possession by the police vide memo Ex.PW 1 /B. The accused rather pleaded ignorance. The non-denial by the accused about the recovery of a working still from his possession, also lends support to the prosecution case.
9. The case of the accused is that he has been falsely implicated. Nothing has come on the record to show that either PW 1 or PW 2 or PW 7 had any enmity with the accused so as to furnish a cause for the false implication of the accused.
10. On the basis of the evidence coming on the record, the accused has been rightly convicted of the offence under Section 61(1) (c) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914, as applicable to Himachal Pradesh. Such conviction does not call for any interference by this Court.
11. As stated above, the accused, upon conviction has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-.
12. A contention has been raised on behalf of the accused that the sentence imposed is harsh on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. Keeping in view the fact that the accused is a first offender, as also the sole bread winner of the family, a lenient view may be taken and benefit of probation be extended to him.
13. The offence in the present case was committed on 1 -1 -1995. As on that date the minimum sentence prescribed for the offence under Section 61(l)(c), Punjab Excise Act, 1914, as amended by the Punjab Excise (Himachal Pradesh First Amendment) Act, 1989, was imprisonment for a period not less than one year and fine which shall not be less than five thousand rupees.
14. Be it stated that the offence of manufacturing illicit liquor implied a good deal of preparation and it is mostly done with the intention of selling to others. Therefore, it cannot be said that the same was done in consequence of succumbing to sudden temptation when a man was found for the first time by the police manufacturing illicit liquor. He might have probably done it at least a dozen time before and since it deprive the Government of revenue, besides demoralising the people, deterrent sentences, in such cases, are called for.
15. In Sucha Singh v. State of Punjab (1983) 2 Crimes (SN) (Punj & Hry), it has been held that hardly a day passes when one is not rudely convulsed by the newspaper reporting, so many are dead due to consumption of poisonous illicit liquor. The kind of crime which is in cold blood and for profit has to be dealt with sternly and only a jail sentence holds ouf some deterrence to the criminals of this category.
16. With a view to provide for deterrent punishment for the offence under Section 61(l)(c), the Punjab Excise Act, in its application to the State of Himachal Pradesh, was again amended by the Punjab Excise (Himachal Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1995, with effect from 22-6-1995 and the minimum sentence for the offence Under Section 61(l)(c) has been enhanced to imprisonment for a period not less than three years and fine not less than rupees one lac.
17. The Supreme Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. S.R. Rangadamappa AIR 1982 SC 1492 : 1982 Cri LJ 2364, has held that when a statute prescribes a minimum sentence for an offence and does not provide exceptions and does not vest the Court with any discretion to award sentence below the prescribed minimum under any special circumstances, the High Court cannot in its revisional jurisdiction, reduce the sentence of imprisonment to less than the minimum prescribed.
18. The sentence awarded to the accused in the present case is less than the minimum prescribed under the Act. He thus stands dealt with very leniently by the learned Sessions Judge. The sentence imposed, in fact, is required to be enhanced, however, in the absence of an appeal by the State for the enhancement of sentence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the sentence already imposed.
19. Resultantly, the petition is dismissed. The accused, who is on bail, is directed to surrender himself to his bail bonds before the learned trial Court within a period of four weeks from today to receive and serve out the sentence imposed upon him, failing which the learned trial Court shall proceed against him in accordance with law.