Criminal Revision No.1650 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1650 of 2011 Date of decision: September 30, 2011 Tota Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH PRESENT: Ms. Gurvir Kaur, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. NDS Maan, Addl.AG, Punjab for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner has been convicted for an offence under Section 61(1) (C)of the Punjab Excise Act and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1½ year coupled with fine of `5000/-. The petitioner filed an appeal against the said order and the appellate Court had interfered only in the quantum of sentence. The appeal has been dismissed, but the sentence of rigorous imprisonment has been reduced from 1½ to 1 year. By now the petitioner has undergone imprisonment for a period of nearly two months. The petitioner has now filed the revision to impugn the order passed by the appellate Court. The facts leading to the conviction can be noticed in brief. The petitioner was caught when ASI Tarlok Singh received a secret information that the petitioner was habitual of distilling & selling illicit liquor. On the basis of information, the said Criminal Revision No.1650 of 2011 -2- ASI raided the place and found two persons with illicit liquor. One was apprehended at the spot, who disclosed his name Tota Singh. One person succeeded in running away from the spot, who is identified as Kakku Singh as ASI Tarlok Singh already knew him. One drum boiler containing 80 kg. Lahan and three drums each containing 150 kg lahan were recovered. 14 bottles of illicit liquor were also found lying. The case property was sealed. Kakku Singh was also later arrested. On the basis of evidence, accused Tota Singh was convicted, whereas Kakku Singh was acquitted. I have heard counsel for the parties. In view of the evidence, which is supported by the recovery, I do not find any infirmity in the order of conviction as recorded by the Courts below. However, counsel for the petitioner pleads leniency. Ordinarily, no case for showing leniency may be made out in view of the quantity of liquor recovered. Counsel pleads that the petitioner undertakes to behave in future and mend his ways. Counsel also submits that the petitioner has minor children to look after. Considering these mitigating circumstances, sentence is reduced to period of 6 months instead of 1 year. The revision petition is otherwise dismissed. September 30, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE