IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 1370 of 2005 Date of decision:25.10.2010 Rama Nand ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL Present: Mr. N.K. Sanghi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Rattu, DAG, Haryana. **** A.N. JINDAL, J.(ORAL) The petitioner-accused(herein referred as 'the petitioner') has assailed the judgment dated 20.7.2005 passed by Sessions Judge, Narnaul dismissing his appeal against the judgment dated 23.11.2004 passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Narnaul convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 61 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (for brevity the Act). Admittedly 96 bottles of beer were recovered from the accused. There is no dispute that the accused was apprehended from a hotel and on his search he was found in possession eight cartons of bear Mark Thunder Bolt. Each carton contained 12 bottles of beer for which he had failed to show any permit or license. Without assailing the judgement of conviction some leniency on the quantum of sentence has been sought. Crl. Revision No. 1370 of 2005 -2- Heard. Sufficient evidnce has been led in order to establish the charge against the petitioner. The evidence, on the basis of which findings of fact have been returned by the Courts below, appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. Faced with the situation, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for extending some leniency on the quantum of sentence. The occurence in this case took place on 26.5.2002 and the petitioner has suffered a lot of agony on account of the protracted proceedings since then. He has already undergone more than one month of the substantive sentence. No bad antecedents have been pointed out which may create a hurdle for reducing the sentence awarded against him, therefore, it is a fit case in which some reduction in the sentence could be made by taking a lenient view. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence to that of already undergone without any alteration in the sentence of fine. Copy of the order be sent to the Chief Judicial Magisrate, Narnaul for compliance. (A.N. JINDAL) 25.10.2010 JUDGE Poonam(II)