Crl.Revn. NO.1223 of 2003 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Revn. NO.1223 of 2003 DATE OF DECISION: 22.02.2010 Bhoop Singh ...PETITIONER VS. State of Haryana ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL PRESENT: Mr.P.S.Chauhan, Advocate as amicus curiae for the petitioner. Mr.Manish Deswal, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent-State. MOHINDER PAL, J.(Oral) This revision petition has been filed by petitioner Bhoop Singh against the judgment dated 02.05.2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar whereby the judgment of conviction and sentence order dated 15.02.2002 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hansi, convicting the petitioner under Section 61(1)(a) of the Excise Act (for short 'the Act) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of Crl.Revn. NO.1223 of 2003 2 one month was dismissed. The facts of the prosecution case, in brief, are that on 20.03.1996, a police party headed by Head Constable Kailash Chand along with other police officials while on patrol duty, apprehended the accused Bhoop Singh and recovered 10 bottles of country made liquor in the plastic can. The accused could not produce and permit or licence for keeping in possession 10 bottles of liquor. A nip was separated from the plastic can for the purposes of sample. The samples and the plastic can were sealed with the seal bearing description 'KC' and were taken into police custody vide a recovery memo. The seal was handed over to Head Constable Hukam Chand after its use. After completion of investigation, report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was submitted against the accused in the Court. The accused was charged under Section 61(1)(a) of the Excise Act. He did not plead guilty to the charge-sheet and claimed trial. At the trial, the prosecution examined PW1 Head Constable Hukam Chand, PW2 Constable Ramesh Kumar, PW3 Deputy Superintendent of Police Bishan Dayal, PW4 Sub Inspector Ikbal Kaur, PW5 Head Constable Rattan Singh, PW6 Head Constable Kailash Chand and PW7 Head Constable Puran Mal. The prosecution witnesses, namely, Prem Chand and Surajbhan were given up as unnecessary witnesses and closed the evidence of the prosecution. In his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner Bhoop Singh denied the prosecution allegations and stated that no liquor was recovered from him. Crl.Revn. NO.1223 of 2003 3 No evidence was led in defence. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. No doubt the evidence led by the prosecution is consisted of the official witnesses and the independent witnesses, namely, Prem Singh and Surajbhan were given up as unnecessary witnesses, but that does not at all affect the prosecution case. The accused was apprehended by the police officials while performing their official duties and 10 bottles of country made liquor, without any permit or licence, were recovered from them. They have no enmity with the accused to falsely implicate him in this case. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any flaw in the prosecution case, which otherwise stands proved on record. In fact, no serious challenge could be made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the truthfulness of the prosecution version. Under the circumstances, I do not see any ground warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner has rightly been convicted in this case. As such, conviction of petitioner Bhoop Singh under Section 61(1)(a) of the Act, as recorded by both the Courts below, is maintained. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case particularly the fact that Sword of Damocles has remained hanging over the head of petitioner-accused Bhoop Singh for the last more than thirteen and a half years as the case relates to 20.03.1996 and the petitioner has remained incarcerated for more than 25 days, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice will be adequately met if the sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the Crl.Revn. NO.1223 of 2003 4 period already undergone by him and the sentence of fine and the default clause are left unaltered. I order accordingly. With the above modification in the impugned sentence order, this revision petition is dismissed. February 22, 2010 ( MOHINDER PAL ) jt JUDGE