IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1963 of 2002 Date of decision: 14.10.2011 Mahavir and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. Sidakmeet Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. A.S. Jattana, Addl.AG, Punjab for the State. RANJIT SINGH J. The petitioners have filed this revision to impugn the order of their conviction for an offence under Section 61(1) (a) of Punjab Excise Act, 1914. Upon their conviction, the petitioners were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of ` 1,000/-. They were further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month in default of payment of fine. As per the prosecution, ASI Tarlok Singh alongwith Excise Inspector Ram Dass, was proceeding on the kacha passage from the side of village Bishanpura towards village Bazidpur in connection with patrolling. After travelling a distance of about two kilometers, they found the petitioners alongwith another travelling in a jeep. Sh. Tarlok Singh made a jeep to stop on the basis of suspicion. On being questioned, the petitioners became nervous. Search of jeep led to 18 containers of the capacity of twenty litres each recovered from back side of the jeep where Sh. Sushil Kumar, co- Criminal Revision No. 1963 of 2002 -2- passenger were also sitting. One nip out of each container was taken as a sample and sealed. The trial followed leading to conviction and the sentence as noticed. The petitioners remained unsuccessful in their appeal. The petitioners were also denied the benefit of probation by the trial Court as well as by the appellate Court on the ground that they were found in possession of 360 litres of illicit liquor make Rajasthan. The appellate Court had noticed that the one of the petitioner was below 21 years of age at the time of commission of offence. Still the appellate Court declined their prayer for release on probation by observing that it did not find any ground to release the petitioners on probation. Counsel appearing for the petitioners, however restricts his prayer for reducing the sentence to already undergone on the ground that this revision is pending since 2002. The incident relates to the year 1997 and the order of conviction was passed on 01.12.2001 against which the appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed on 02.09.2002. Considering the fact that the petitioners committed this offence at a very young age and one of the petitioner was below 21 years of age, is a good enough reason to show leniency. The petitioners have also undergone imprisonment of about two months. Making the petitioners now to undergo the sentence would further retard their reformation. As per the counsel, this is only offence alleged against the petitioners and otherwise they are having clean record. Criminal Revision No. 1963 of 2002 -3- Taking all the facts into consideration, the sentence imposed on the petitioners is reduced to period already undergone. The revision petition is, accordingly, disposed of. October 14, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE