Crl. Revision No.2181 of 2002 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Revision No.2181 of 2002 Date of Decision: July 29, 2010 Darshan Singh .......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .......Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.SK Bawa, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.JS Bhullar, Asstt. Advocate General, Punjab. <><><> JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. 1. The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 3.10.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa whereby judgment and order, dated 13.9.2001, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mansa (hereinafter referred to as “Trial Court”) was upheld and the sentence of the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 61(1)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (hereinafter Crl. Revision No.2181 of 2002 -2- referred to “the Act”) and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months was affirmed. 2. Brief facts of the case, as narrated in para 2 of the trial Court judgment, are as under: “On 13.1.99 ASI Major Singh along with HC Gurtej Singh, C.Darshan Singh and the police officials were present in D.C.Chowk for patrolling, there he got secret information that accused Darshan Singh was distilling the illicit liquor by means of working still in his house and if raid is conducted recovery could be made. On this information ruqa was sent to the police station and case was registered. Thereafter, the police party proceded to apprehend the accused. They raided house of the accused. Accused was seen distilling the illicit liquor by means of working still in a room of his house meant for Turri and that he was changing that water. Accused was apprehended on the spot. Still was dismantled. It is stated that still was constructed under ground hearth on which drum boiler containing 50 kg. Of lahan was laced and the illicit liquor being distilled through the rubber tube in a plastic can. After dismantling the still, the drum boiler was sealed with 'MS' out of the receiver can 180 ml was taken as sample and the remaining illicit liquor was measured to be 5-1/4 bottles which were put in to the same plastic can and was also sealed with the seal bearing impression 'MS'. Boiler drum receiver can and sample and other implements of working still were taken into possession through recovery memo. Rough site plan of place of recovery was Crl. Revision No.2181 of 2002 -3- prepared. After usual investigation, challan against the accused was put up for trial.” 3. The accused-petitioner was charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 61(1)(c) of the Act to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as five witnesses, viz., Head Constable Gurtej Singh as PW1; Constable Harinder Singh as PW2; Head Constable Gurtej Singh as PW3; E.I. Inder Pal Singh as PW4 and ASI Major Singh, Investigating Officer, as PW5. 5. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the allegations and pleaded his false implication. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner for a term as noticed in para 1 of this judgment. 7. The petitioner was ordered to be released on bail on 6.1.2003 by this Court and the present revision petition was admitted on 16.1.2004. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the finding of the learned Courts below and confines his submission to the question of quantum of sentence only and has prayed that sentence already awarded by the Trial Court be reduced to the period already undergone. 9. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that no leniency should be shown to the petitioner. 10. From the record, it is made out that the FIR in the instant case was registered on 13.1.1999. Thus, the petitioner has suffered a protracted trial for more than 11 years. The petitioner has already undergone Crl. Revision No.2181 of 2002 -4- sentence for about two months. 11. In view of the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and in the facts and circumstances and, particularly, the protracted trial of more than 11 years and keeping in view the right of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India for speedy trial, I am of the opinion that ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone and, in addition thereto, the sentence of fine is enhanced. 12. In view of the above, the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 61(1)(c) of the Act is maintained. However, the substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone and the sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.15,000/- over and above imposed by the learned Trial Court to be paid to the State within three months from today. 13. Accordingly, this petition is partly allowed and the judgment/order of the Appellate Court dated 3.10.2002 and that of the Trial Court dated 13.9.2001 are modified to the extent indicated above. ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) July 29, 2010 JUDGE SRM Note: Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No