In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Criminal Revision No.1834 of 2005 Date of decision: December 01, 2010 Harsharan Singh .. Petitioner vs. State of Punjab .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL Present: Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Chaudhary, AAG, Punjab for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J Anil Kumar Accused petitioner (herein referred as, 'the petitioner') was prosecuted for the offence under Section 61 (1) (a) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (for brevity, 'the Act') and ultimately vide judgment dated 2.3.2001 passed by the trial court, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-. The appeal preferred by him was also dismissed. On 31.7.1999, ASI Hardayal Singh along with other police officials apprehended the petitioner. On suspicion, the jute bag carried by him was searched which was found containing one carton containing Mikado Dry Gin and five bottles containing Mikado xxx rum for which he could not show any licence or permit. Consequently, he was arrested, recovery memo of the contraband was prepared and on receipt of the report of the Chemical examiner, challan was presented in the court. Consequently, he was charged, tried, convicted and sentenced accordingly. The appeal preferred by him was also dismissed. Arguments heard. Record perused. The recovery of 70 bottles of illicit liquor stands duly proved from the accused by ASI Hardyal Singh (PW2), C. Barjinder Singh (PW1) and C. Sarabjit Singh (PW3). They have consistently stated about the time, place and the manner in which the recovery was effected. Both the courts below, after due appreciation of the evidence have returned the findings of fact regarding the guilt of the accused. On close scrutiny of the concurrent findings returned by both the courts below, Criminal Revision No.1834 of 2005 -2- no illegality or irregularity much less perversity has been detected rendering the judgment as illegal warranting interference by this Court. Re-appreciation of the evidence at this revisional stage is not permissible. No grounds to interfere are made out. Resultantly, this petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed. December 01, 2010 (A. N. Jindal) deepak Judge