In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No.1181 of 2004 Date of decision: May 05, 2009 Ishwar Singh .. Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. M.K. Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Surender Kapoor, Addl. A.G. Punjab for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 15.4.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Ad-hoc), Fast Track Court, Sangrur, dismissing the appeal filed by the accused-petitioner (herein referred as 'the petitioner') against the judgment dated 6.8.2003 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sunam, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 61 (1) (a) of the Punjab Excise Act (herein referred as 'the Act'). The factual matrix of the case is that on 9.12.1997, at about 7.30 p.m. ASI Swaranjit Singh along with other police officials held a picket on Rampura-Maniana road. In the meantime, the petitioner came in maruti van bearing registration No.DNA-1722 who was stopped. On search of the van, 12 card board boxes containing 50 pouches each of country made liquor make “Patiala Rose” were recovered. The petitioner could not produce any licence or permit for possessing the same. The liquor was taken into police possession and sealed with the seal bearing impression “SS”. The sample seal was also prepared separately. Ruqa was sent to the police station on the basis of which case was registered and investigated. Completion of the investigation was followed by a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Crl. Revision No.1181 of 2004 -2- *** The petitioner was charged for the offence punishable under Section 61 (1) (a) of the Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. The prosecution led sufficient evidence and ultimately the trial ended in conviction. The appeal preferred by him also failed. However, the sentence was reduced to six months. Arguments heard. At the very outset, without assailing the judgment of conviction it has been submitted that he being first offender and having already undergone three months and twelve days of the substantive sentence, must be extended some leniency. Having examined the impugned judgment, the evidence appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. No illegality much less irregularity has been detected or pointed out warranting interference by this Court. As such, the impugned judgment of conviction is maintained. Now coming to the quantum of sentence, it may be observed that the occurrence took place way back in the year 1997 and the petitioner has already suffered a lot due to the protracted proceedings. The sword of sentence remained hanging over his head since then. He has already undergone three months and twelve days of the substantive sentence. No bad antecedents have been exposed in order to dub him as habitual offender. As such, ends of justice would be met if some leniency is extended to him. Consequently, this petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence to that of already undergone by him without alteration in the sentence of fine. May 05, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge