IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.784 of 2000 Date of decision: 22nd January, 2010 Pappu … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. C.M. Munjal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the State. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Present revision petition has been filed by Pappu alias Aslam. The petitioner was tried by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur in case FIR No.51 dated 19.02.1996 registered at Police Station Sadar Ferozepur under Section 61(1)(a) of Punjab Excise Act. The Court found him guilty of the offence under Section 61(1)(a) of Punjab Excise Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.2000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Aggrieved against the conviction and sentence, petitioner had filed an appeal. The petitioner was apprehended by a police party headed by ASI Gurbax Singh, who received a secret information that petitioner indulged in selling of illicit liquor. From the petitioner, two tubes Ex.MO-1 and MO-2 containing illicit liquor were recovered. The measurement was found equal to 100 bottles qua each tube. The prosecution examined PW-1 HC Balwinder Singh, PW-2 Constable Jagir Singh and PW-3 ASI Criminal Revision No.784 of 2000 Gurbax Singh. MHC Brij Lal tendered his affidavit Ex.P1 to prove link evidence. Petitioner was examined and his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. He denied all incriminating circumstances. No witness was examined in defence. Two courts below have placed implicit reliance upon the testimony of PW-1 HC Balwinder Singh, PW-2 Constable Jagir Singh and PW-3 ASI Gurbax Singh. Counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any patent illegality or irregularity in the judgments of the two courts below. Counsel has prayed that there are many discrepancies and contradictions in the testimony of these witnesses, therefore, they cannot be relied upon. This Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction cannot undertake exercise of re-appreciation or re-appraisal of the evidence, therefore, this Court is hesitant to accept the prayer of the petitioner. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was aged 20 years, as has been noticed by the lower appellate Court, when his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 30th April, 1999. Counsel has further submitted that in the present case, occurrence pertains to February, 1996. A period of about 14 years is going to elapse. Petitioner has suffered mental agony and pain of protracted trial. Petitioner has already undergone two months and nine days. This Court has given consideration to the prayer that the petitioner be released on probation, but counsel for the State informed that another FIR No.232 pertaining to year 1996 is pending against the petitioner. However, petitioner cannot be deprived of mitigating circumstance which has occurred to the petitioner because of protracted trial. Hence, taking into consideration totality of circumstances, sentence awarded upon the petitioner is reduced from one year to six months 2 Criminal Revision No.784 of 2000 rigorous imprisonment. However, sentence of fine and default clause are maintained. With the modifications in sentence, noticed above, present revision petition is disposed of. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE January 22, 2010 rps 3