IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. Revision Nos. 109 and 110 of 2011 Date of Decision 30th June ,2011 ________________________________________________________ Cr. Revision No. 109 of 2011 Gurpreet Singh ….Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. ….Respondent. Cr. Revision No. 110 of 2011 Sunil Kumar …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. …..Respondent ________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No ________________________________________________________ Cr. Revision Nos. 109 and 110 of 2011 For the Petitioners: Mr. M.L. Brakta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl A.G. with Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Deputy A.G. _____________________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, J (oral) Both these petitions challenge the conviction of the petitioners herein under Section 61 (1) (a) of the Punjab Excise 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 Act as applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the petitioners were intercepted by the police, while they were going in a maruti van bearing No. HP-02A-0229. The prosecution alleges that when this vehicle was intercepted by the police at around 11 PM in the night near the Taradevi barrier, they were found in possession of 360 bottles of country liquor being transported and carried without any permit. The petitioners were arraigned for offences under the Excise Act, as noted above. 2. On the evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted both the petitioners. On the question of sentencing, the learned trial Court relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Kishan 2005 Cr.L.J. 333 holding that punishment should be adequate so that the society can be protected from criminals. The petitioners were therefore sentenced to undergo six months simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of ` 5000/- each under Section 61(1) (a) of the Excise Act and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month. 3. The petitioners appealed. The learned Sessions Judge on the evidence on record rejected the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners herein that no independent witness had been associated during the seizure or immediately thereafter. The second submission made on behalf of the petitioners was that sample from each of 360 bottles had not been sent for chemical analysis and in these circumstances, no conviction could follow. 3 4. The learned Sessions Judge rejected both the arguments and held that it is now well settled by the Supreme Court that evidence of police witnesses cannot be rejected as the partisan or tainted. It is not always necessary that corroboration of their evidence should be sought from independent witness. The reality in this case is that seizure was made at 11 PM at night. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the spot is a busy highway and it was easy for the police to associate some independent witness during the seizure. I cannot accept this submission. Even if it is a busy highway, nobody takes the risk to associate in a criminal case and thereafter to appear in Court on a number of dates. This is the ground reality. 5. On the second submission made that sample of each bottle was not sent for chemical analysis, submission requires outright rejection as neither it is possible nor it is the requirement of law to take the sample of each and every seized bottle of liquor and then send it for chemical analysis. 6. In revisional jurisdiction, I am not inclined to interfere with the findings of two Courts below which are based on sound appreciation of evidence. I am also not convinced that the findings of the Courts below are perverse. These revision petitions are therefore rejected. 7. On the question of sentencing, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the sentence is excessively harsh. The petitioners are in employment and it would adversely affect their carrier. 8. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstance of the case, I direct that both the petitioners shall undergo 4 simple imprisonment for a period of two months. The fine, however, is increased to ` 25,000/- each, which shall be deposited by both the petitioners within a period of four months from today before the trial Court, failing which the sentence as imposed by the learned trial Court shall revive. A direction is issued that this judgment be punctually obeyed and sentence be carried out. Petitions stand disposed of. Bail bonds furnished by the petitioners stand cancelled. June 30th 2011 (Dev Darshan Sud), ms Judge 5