IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. R. No.872 of 2011 Date of Decision:16.5.2011 Ram Lal .... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .... Respondent CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. Gurmeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Gurveen H. Singh, Addl. A.G. Punjab. **** 1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.(Oral) Assailed in this revision is the judgment dated 22.1.2011 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Patiala, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against the judgment dated 21.1.2006, passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala, convicting the accused- petitioner under Section 61 of Punjab Excise Act and sentencing him to undergo RI for one year and fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one month. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the co- accused of the petitioner, who is on identical footing, filed Crl. R. No.416 of 2011 titled as Sher Singh v. State of Punjab against the same judgment and order in which the following order has been passed: “This revision petition has been filed against Crl. R. No.872 of 2011 -2- concurrent conviction of the petitioner under Section 61 of the Punjab Excise Act. The allegations were that on receiving a secret information that contractors Subhash Chand, Vinod Kumar, RC Gupta and Tarsem have bought English Liquor from Chandigarh on cheaper rates and are in the process of changing their labels to sell the same on higher rates in Punjab, a raid was conducted. In that raid though the main accused absconded yet the petitioner along with others was found changing the labels. A total number of 3480 bottles of Whisky of the make Bagpiper, Director Special and Aristocrat were recovered. It was not disputed that the petitioner was one of the servants of the above mentioned contractors. Strangely thereafter the main accused were let off by finding them to be innocent. It is hard to believe that a menial servant had purchased 3480 bottles of English liquor from Chandigarh and the fat cat owners had no knowledge thereof. It would have been one thing of the courts below had come to a definite conclusion that it was the petitioner who was himself involved in the purchase and tampering of the said bottles along with others but this is not so. He has only been found guilty of tampering with the labels and has been convicted and sentenced to one year as mentioned above. It is not disputed by learned DAG, on Crl. R. No.872 of 2011 -3- instructions from HC Bhupinder Singh, that the petitioner has now been in custody for the last two months. Keeping in mind the fact that the petitioner was not the main perpetrator of the crime and inasmuch as there is no finding that he had purchased liquor from Chandigarh, I deem it appropriate grant him some relief. Thus, even while upholding his conviction, I reduce his sentence to that he has already undergone. Let the petitioner be released forthwith.” Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State does not dispute the factual position. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has already undergone almost 4 months out of the total sentence of one year. In view of the above, the present revision petition is disposed of in the same terms. Accordingly, the conviction is upheld. However, the sentence of the petitioner is reduced as that to already having undergone. Let the petitioner be released forthwith. 16.5.2011 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE