IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.580 of 2005 Date of Decision 22.11.2010 Gurbhej Singh ...... Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ...... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.S.S.Sandhu, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Amit Chaudhary, Asstt. Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent-State. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J: Challenge in this petition is to the judgment dated 07.12.2004, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ferozepur, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner-accused (herein referred as 'the petitioner') against the judgment dated 05.07.2002, vide which the trial Court convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 61(1)(c) of Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (for brevity 'the Act'). The allegations against the petitioner are that he was apprehended while operating the working still and thereby distilling illicit liquor in the house of his uncle. Eighty kilograms of lahan and illicit liquor were recovered from his possession. He was charged, tried and ultimately convicted and sentenced accordingly. His appeal also failed. Heard. Sufficient evidence has been led in order to establish the charge against the petitioner. The evidence, on the basis of which Criminal Revision No.580 of 2005 -2- findings of fact have been returned by the Courts below, appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. No such illegality much less irregularity or manifest error apparent on the record has been pointed out, which may be sufficient for interference in the impugned judgment. Faced with the situation, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for extending some leniency on the quantum of sentence. The occurrence is of the year 1998; the petitioner has already suffered a lot of agony on account of the pendency of proceedings in the Courts for the last twelve years and the sword of sentence remained hanging over his head since then; he has already undergone more than 4 ½ months of the substantive sentence, therefore, it would be in the fitness of things to extend some leniency on the quantum of sentence. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence which is reduced to six months without any alteration in the sentence of fine. Copy of the order be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur, for compliance. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 22.11.2010 mamta-II