Crl. Rev. No. 2964 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Rev. No.2964 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 22.12.2009 Manpreet Singh and another ...Petitioners Versus State (UT Administration) Chandigarh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. T.S. Sangha, Senior Advocate, with Mr. BPS Virk, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Hemant Bassi, Standing counsel for U.T. Rajan Gupta, J. This is a revision petition preferred by the petitioners against their conviction and sentence under Section 417 IPC and Section 61/1/14 of the Punjab Excise Act. Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that on 2nd May, 2003, SI Surinder Pal, on receipt of a telephonic message that a Qualis vehicle No. HR-61-ET-5781 having red light and black film had been seen in colony No.4, Chandigarh under suspicious circumstances, reached at the spot alongwith other police officials and held a barricade near Power House turn in Colony No.4. At about 7.30 a.m. a Qualis car having aforesaid number came from the side of colony No.4 driven by petitioner Manpreet Singh and Resham Singh petitioner was sitting on his left side. Resham Singh was in police uniform. On checking, 57 Crl. Rev. No. 2964 of 2009 2 boxes containing different brands of Indian made foreign liquor and 10 boxes containing pouches of liquor were recovered from the above said vehicle. On asking, the petitioners could not produce any valid licence or permit to retain the above said boxes of liquor. There was a blue colour sticker on the front window pane pasted with the permission of coloured film. The said sticker was valid upto 27.05.2003 and it was for vehicle No. CH-01-H-4876 for the Gypsy. Out of 57 boxes of liquor, one bottle each was taken and one pouch each was taken from each box containing pouches. The parcels were prepared and sealed with seal impression “SP” at two places and all the parcels were taken into possession. The vehicle was also taken into possession. On completion of other formalities investigation and receipt of report of chemical examiner, the challan was submitted in the competent court of jurisdiction. Prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses. The accused/petitioners, however, did not produce any witness in their defence. The learned trial court after appraising the evidence, convicted and sentenced the accused/petitioners under Section 417 IPC and Section 61/1/14 of the Punjab Excise Act. They were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each under Section 417 IPC and to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 61/1/14 of the Punjab Excise Act. Crl. Rev. No. 2964 of 2009 3 Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have already undergone a protracted trial of about nine years. At the time of commission of crime, the petitioners were about 18 and 29 years of age respectively and they are first offenders. Even though there may be a minimum sentence of six months for the offence committed by them, it is too well settled that even in such matters, where the minimum sentence is prescribed, the offender can be let off on probation. In support of his aforesaid contention, learned counsel has relied upon the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab, 1980 Crl. L.J. 1218, which was followed by this Court in Baldev Singh v. State of Haryana, 1985 (1) (Crl.) 36. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the recovery is of huge quantity and, therefore, the petitioners do not deserve the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. After perusing the judgments of the courts below as well as the evidence on record, I am of the considered view that the finding of conviction has been correctly rendered against the accused/petitioners. However, taking into account totality of circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners can be granted benefit under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act. They are stated to be the first offenders. As mentioned above, they have already undergone protracted trial of about nine years. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to extend the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to the petitioners on Crl. Rev. No. 2964 of 2009 4 their furnishing bonds in the sum of Rs.20,000/- each and to keep peace and be of good behaviour for a period of two years under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. However, cost of the proceedings need to be imposed in this case. Both the petitioners shall deposit Rs.15,000/- each in respect thereof. The same be deposited within three months from today, failing which, present revision petition shall stand dismissed. The petitioners shall furnish the bonds within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The revision stands disposed of accordingly. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE December 22, 2009 'rajpal'