IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1736 of 2005 Date of decision: November 26, 2010 Nanak Singh .. Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Paramjit Singh Saini, Advocate for Mr. D.S. Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. O.P. Dabla, DAG, Punjab for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J Challenge in this petition is made to the judgment dated 3.8.2005 passed by the Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, dismissing appeal filed by the accused-petitioner (herein referred as, 'the accused') against the judgment dated 21.9.2004 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 61 (1) (a) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (for brevity, 'the Act'). The allegations against the accused are that he had kept in his possession 39 bottles of illicit liquor without any permit or licence. At the very outset, without assailing the judgment of conviction, it has been submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner being the first offender and having already undergone 1- ½ months of the substantive sentence, may be dealt with leniently on the quantum of sentence. Having examined the impugned judgment, the evidence appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. Both the courts below have returned concurrent findings of fact that the accused is guilty of the offence for which he was charged. No illegality much less irregularity or perversity has been detected or pointed out warranting interference by this court. As such, no exception to the opinion expressed by the courts below regarding the guilt of the accused could be made at this revisional stage. Criminal Revision No. 1736 of 2005 -2- *** Now coming to the quantum of sentence, it may be observed that the occurrence took place way back in the year 2000; the petitioner has already suffered a lot due to the protracted proceedings pending against him since then; he has already undergone 1- ½ months of the substantive sentence and no bad antecedents have come on record so as to dub him as habitual offender. As such, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if some leniency is extended to him. Resultantly, while dismissing the petition, sentence passed against the petitioner is modified to that of already undergone by him. However, the fine is enhanced to Rs.6000/- which shall be paid within three months from today, failing which he would undergo the sentence as awarded by the trial court. Copy of the judgment be sent to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala for compliance. November 26, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge