Criminal Revision No.1977 of 2005(O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... CRIMINAL REVISION No.1977 OF 2005 Decided on : February 24, 2010 Nihal Singh ... Petitioner VERSUS The State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.R.K.Girdhar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.C.S.Brar, Deputy Advocate General for the respondent – State of Punjab. A.N.JINDAL, J.- Nihal Singh – petitioner has assailed the judgment dated 12.9.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, whereby, his appeal against the judgment dated 6.11.2002 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fazilka, convicting him under Section 61(1)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act and sentencing to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, was dismissed. In nutshell, the prosecution case is that on 26.10.1996 ASI Tarsem Pal along with other police officials was going towards village Dhab Karyal, Mahalam, etc. for patrol duty. When the police party was near village Mahalam, ASI Tarsem Pal received a secret information that the petitioner was distilling illicit liquor with the help of a working still on Criminal Revision No.1977 of 2005(O&M) [2] the eastern side of his cotton field, by the side of canal minor in the revenue limits of village Mahalam and that he could be apprehended, in case a raid is conducted. Ruqa Ex.P5 was sent to the police station, on the basis of which formal FIR Ex.P6 was recorded against the petitioner. On raid, the police party found the petitioner distilling illicit liquor and at that time he was giving heat to the drum. The case property was taken into possession vide separate memos and it was deposited with the MHC Vinod Kumar in intact condition. After completing all other necessary formalities, the report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was presented against the petitioner. The petitioner was accordingly charged under Section 61(1)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During trial, the prosecution examined as many as five witnesses and also tendered in evidence the report of the Chemical Examiner Ex.P8. When examined under Section 313 CrPC, the petitioner denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his false implication in the case. Ultimately, the trial ended in conviction, as referred to above. In appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, the petitioner, without assailing the conviction, had only prayed for reduction of the sentence. Heard. Even otherwise, records transpire that both the Courts below have returned a finding of fact regarding guilt of the petitioner on proper Criminal Revision No.1977 of 2005(O&M) [3] appreciation of the evidence, therefore, the judgment of conviction stands maintained. Now, coming to the quantum of sentence, the occurrence in this case took place in October, 1996; the accused has already undergone about two months of the substantive sentence and has also suffered a lot of agony due to protracted proceedings for the last about 15 years. That apart, no bad antecedents of the petitioner have been brought on record, so as to dub him as habitual offender. In such circumstances, it would be in the fitness of things, if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to that already undergone by the petitioner, without altering the sentence of fine. Ordered accordingly. The 24th Day of February, 2010 ( A.N.JINDAL ) 'gian' JUDGE