Crl. Revision No. 1188 of 2005 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 1188 of 2005 DATE OF DECISION: November 15, 2011 Jagdish .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Gurmit Singh Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Shruti Jain, AAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner was convicted under Sections 61 (1) (14) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 on 18.10.2001. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of `2000/-. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner was further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. On a secret information received that the petitioner was distilling illicit liquor in his field, ASI Shiv Dan Singh had conducted a raid after registering FIR. The petitioner was found distilling illicit liquor by working still. The still was broken by the Police. 13-3/4 bottles of illicit liquor in one canny, 45-3/4 bottles of illicit liquor in another canny and two pitchers containing lahan weighing 160 Kgs were also recovered from the Crl. Revision No. 1188 of 2005 -2- petitioner. On the basis of evidence led by the prosecution, the petitioner was convicted. He has remained unsuccessful in his appeal. The petitioner, accordingly, has filed the present revision petition. The recovery was on 20.10.1994. Though recovery is substantial, but the petitioner faced the protracted trial and was convicted in the year 2001. His appeal was dismissed on 31.5.2005 and since then the petitioner is before this Court through the present revision petition. The petitioner has hardly undergone a period of sentence while facing trial. After conviction the petitioner has undergone two months rigorous imprisonment. Counsel for the petitioner pleads for leniency on the ground that it is an old case and the petitioner has undergone the agony of a prolonged trial . The petitioner is a first offender. The petitioner appears has suffered the agony of these protracted proceedings. It is seen that the petitioner has not indulged in such activities ever thereafter. The aspect of the release of the petitioner on probation apparently has not been considered by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Eliamma Vs. State of Karnataka, 2009 (2) RCR (Criminal) 47 has observed that the consideration for relase of an accused on probation is a mandatory requirement under Section 360 Cr.P.C. and so also under the provisions of Offenders Act. Though the Act provides minimum sentence under the Punjab Excise Act for the offence for which the petitioner has been convicted but that will not be a bar to consider the prayer of release on probation. Reference can be made to Pakhar Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2007 Crl. Revision No. 1188 of 2005 -3- (1) RCR (Criminal) 396. A case for giving chance to the petitioner to reform is made out especially so when he is first offender and has shown remorse over his conduct and has undertaken to behave in future. I, therefore, deem it appropriate to grant the benefit of probation to the petitioner for which this Court has ample powers. The present revision is partly allowed. Order of conviction passed against the petitioner is maintained whereas the order of sentence is set-aside and the petitioner is ordered to be released on probation. The petitioner shall appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order to furnish bail bonds for maintaining good behaviour for a period of 6 months from the date of bond. If the petitioner does not appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, the sentence imposed upon him shall stand revived. November 15, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE