In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Crl. Revision No. 606 of 2003
Date of decision: March 06, 2009
Mohinder Singh
... Petitioner
vs.
State of Punjab
... Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal
Present: Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajesh Bhardwaj, Addl. A.G. Punjab
for the respondent.
A.N. Jindal, J
Challenge in this petition is to the judgment dated
6.3.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar,
dismissing the appeal filed by the accused-petitioner Mohinder Singh
(herein referred as 'the petitioner') against the judgment dated
29.3.2001 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar,
convicting the petitioner under Section 61 (1) © of the Punjab Excise
Act and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1- ½
years and to pay fine of Rs.5000/-
The brief resume of the facts is that on 20.10.1995, the
police party, on the basis of secret information that the petitioner was
distilling illicit liquor by running a working still in his fields at village
Devidass Pura, conducted raid, apprehended the petitioner while
distilling the illicit liquor. Amongst other articles, a boiler containing
15 kgs of lahan and plastic Can containing illicit liquor were
recovered. A sample nip of 180 mls was taken from the Can and on
measurement the remaining liquor was found to be four bottles of 750
mls each. A ruqa was sent on the basis of which FIR was registered.
On completion of the investigation, challan against the petitioner was
Crl. Revision No. 606 of 2003 -2-
***
presented in the Court.
The petitioner was charged for the offence under Sections 61
(1) (c) of Punjab Excise Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to
contest.
In order to substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined
ASI Jagjit Singh (PW1), EI Harbhajan Singh (PW2), HC Wazi Singh
(PW3), LC Sikander Singh (PW4) and C. Gurnam Singh (PW5).
When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. he denied all the
allegations and pleaded his false implication in the case. He examined
Dalip Singh (DW1), Kawaljit Singh (DW2) and Sarja Singh (DW3) in
his defence.
Ultimately the trial ended in conviction. The appeal
preferred by him also failed.
Arguments heard. Record perused.
At the very out set, without assailing the conviction it is
urged that the petitioner is a first offender, having suffered lot of agony
on account of the protracted proceedings and already undergone four
months after conviction and about 15 days during trial, deserves to be
extended a lenient view on the quantum of sentence.
Having examined the impugned judgment, it appears to have
been passed on appreciation of the evidence in the right perspective. No
irregularity much less illegality has been pointed out or detected resulting
into miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the judgment of conviction is
maintained.
As regards the quantum of sentence, it may be observed that
the occurrence took place way back in the year 1995 and the petitioner
has suffered a lot of agony on account of the protracted proceedings. He
Crl. Revision No. 606 of 2003 -3-
***
has already undergone about four and half months out of the substantive
sentence. No bad antecedents have been brought on record in order to
dub him as habitual offender. Consequently, I deem it a fit case where
some leniency could be extended to the petitioner.
Resultantly, the instant petition is dismissed with the
modification in the sentence to that of already undergone by him without
alteration in the sentence of fine.
March 06, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge