IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.496 of 2003 Date of decision: February 10, 2010 Ishwar Singh and another .. Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. J.S. Lalli, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. C.S. Brar, DAG, Punjab for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 24.2.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, dismissing the appeal filed by the accused-petitioners (herein referred as 'the accused') filed against the judgment dated 19.3.2002 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nabha, convicting and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- each under Section 61 (1)(C) of Punjab Excise Act. The allegations in nut shell are that on 19.6.1999, at about 3.30 p.m. when ASI Babu Ram along with other police officials was present at the canal bridge in the area of village Dittupur, received a secret information that both the accused were distilling illicit liquor by installing working still near tube-well room in shamlat land of village Dittupur. Finding the information to be reliable, he sent ruqa to the police station Bhadson, on the basis of which formal FIR was lodged. Investigating Officer reached the premises and caught both the accused red handed. The working still was taken into possession so as the lahan as well as distilled liquor which on analysis was found to be illicit. On completion of the investigation challan was presented in the court The prosecution led evidence. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and opportunity to lead defence was given. Criminal Revision No.496 of 2003 -2- *** Ultimately the trial ended in conviction. Their appeal was also dismissed. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners has not assailed the judgment of conviction. Even otherwise, sufficient evidence has been led by the prosecution to bring home the charge against the accused. No plausible defence has been led. As such, concurrent findings of conviction recorded by both the courts below stand affirmed. Now coming to quantum of sentence, it may be observed that the case was registered on 19.3.2002, as such the petitioners have already suffered a lot on account of the protracted proceedings. They have also undergone about one and a half months out of the substantive sentence. No bad antecedents have been brought on record so as to dub them as habitual offenders. As such, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, it would be expedient in the interest of justice to deal them with leniency. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence to that of already undergone by them. However, the sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.10,000/- each over and above the fine already awarded against them to be paid within three months from today. Copy of the judgment be sent to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala for compliance. February 10, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge