Crl. Revision No. 1858 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 1858 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION: October 20, 2011 Waliat Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Prateek Pandit, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. NDS Mann, Addl. A.G., Punjab, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner has impugned his conviction for an offence under Section 61(1) (C) of the Punjab Excise Act in F.I.R. Registered at Police Station Kotawli, Kapurthala. As per the allegation made against the petitioner, he was found distilling illicit liquor by installing a working still in his house. This was detected on the raid conducted by ASI Sakattar Singh, who received a secret information in this regard. This lead to recovery of one big kerosene oil stove, one drummi containing 40 kgs Lahan, one Chhikala, one Chappni, another Chhikala, one plastic pipe and few other items. On this basis, the petitioner was tried and convicted. He is undergoing the imprisonment of one year as imposed on him. Crl. Revision No. 1858 of 2011 -2- Counsel for the petitioner contends that though the petitioner has been imposed minimum sentence, but the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court, did not consider the grant of probation to the petitioner though he was entitled to it being first offender and there being no other impediment in the grant of probation. In this regard, counsel has referred to Eliamma Vs. State of Karnataka, 2009 (2) RCR (Criminal) 47, to urge that Courts are required to consider the case for grant of probation under Section 360 Cr.P.C. and where it is not done the case can be remanded to the trial Court etc. for considering the grant of probation. Counsel, accordingly, pleads that at least the case for release of the petitioner on probation may require consideration. As per the counsel, the statutory requirement of imposing minimum punishment would not be a bar to consider the prayer of release on probation and in this regard has referred to Pakhar Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2007(1) RCR (Criminal) 396. Mr. Mann, however, has opposed the prayer on the ground that working still and recovery of illicit liquor from the petitioner was serious offence. Counsel for the petitioner, further, says that the petitioner would undertake to behave in future and would never indulge in such activities. Considering the repentance shown by the petitioner through his counsel, a case for giving chance to the petitioner to reform is made out. The petitioner is ready to furnish undertaking that he will not indulge in such activities. I, therefore, deem it Crl. Revision No. 1858 of 2011 -3- appropriate to grant the benefit of probation to the petitioner for which this Court has ample powers. The present revision is partly allowed. Order of conviction passed against the petitioner is maintained whereas the order of sentence is set-aside and the petitioner is ordered to be released on probation for a period of one year. Upon his release, the petitioner shall execute bonds to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala on or before 8.11.2011 with an undertaking to keep peace and maintain good behaviour for a period of one year and to appear and receive the sentence during the said period as and when called upon to do so. In addition, the petitioner would be asked to furnish an undertaking before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala, that he will not indulge in such activities in future. The amount of fine, if not already deposited, shall be deposited by the petitioner and be treated as costs of the proceedings. October 20, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE Crl. Revision No. 1858 of 2011 -4-