CRR No.2081 of 2002 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR No.2081 of 2002 Date of decision:27.07.2010 Angrej Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.O.P.Kamboj, Advocate with Mr.Sunil Panwar, Advocate/Amicus curiae, for the petitioner. Mr.J.S.Bhullar, AAG, Punjab. JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. 1. The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 13.9.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, (for short as `Appellate Court') whereby the judgment and order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Fazilka (hereinafter referred as Trial Court'), dated 18.4.2001, convicting the petitioner for the offence under Sections 61(i) (c) of Punjab Excise Act (for short `the Act') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month, was upheld. 2. In brief, the case of the prosecution as projected in para 3 of CRR No.2081 of 2002 2 the impugned judgment of the Appellate Court is as under:- “On 25.10.98, HC Hari Chand was on patrol duty and was proceeding from village Mahalam to village Kathgarh in a private jeep. When the said party reached near the grave- yard in the area of village Kathgarh, HC Hari chand received secret information to the effect that accused Angrej Singh was indulging in the distillation of illicit liquor and if raid is conducted , he can be apprehended. Considering the information to be authentic, ruqa was drawn and sent to the police station, on the basis whereof formal FIR was recorded. The raid was conducted. Before that, efforts were made to join independent witness, but none came forward. Accused was apprehended and at that juncture, he was feeding fire under the hearth of the still. The working still was dismantled. A sample of 180 Mls was taken out of the tin receiver and the remaining liquor was measured which came to 9-3/4 bottles. The remaining measured illicit liquor was put in an empty rubber tube which was lying near the working still. The sample, rubber tube containing illicit liquor and the drum lahan were sealed at the spot with the seal bearing impression `HC' and these articles alongwith components of the working still were taken into possession vide memo duly attested by the witnesses. The Investigator then prepared rough site plan CRR No.2081 of 2002 3 of the place of recovery, recorded the statements of witnesses and on return to the police station, deposited the case property with MHC with seals intact. On receipt of the report of Chemical Examiner, the accused was challaned u/s 61(1)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act, to face judicial trial...” 3. After completion of investigation, challan was presented. The accused/appellant was charge sheeted under Section 61(i) (c) of the Act to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to substantiate the charge against the accused/appellant, the prosecution has examined ASI Hari Chand, Investigating Officer as PW1; LC Balwinder Singh as PW2; Hardev Singh as PW3; Constable Surinder Singh as PW4 and HC Brij Lal as PW5. 5. In the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused denied all the allegations and incriminating evidence against him and pleaded his innocence and also false implication. In defence, the accused examined Sukhchain Singh as DW1. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as noticed in para No.1 of this judgment. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not challenge the judgment and order of the conviction/sentence on merits. However, he prays that a lenient view may be taken in the matter of sentence. CRR No.2081 of 2002 4 8. The learned counsel appearing for the State has submitted that no leniency should be shown to the appellant. 9. From the record, it is made out that the FIR in the instant case was registered on 25.10.1998. Thus, the appellant, by now, has suffered protracted trial for about 12 years. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2006(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 645 titled as “R. Soundarajan V. Seed Inspector, Coimbatore and another” observed as under:- “26. We have carefully perused the entire evidence and documents on record and heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. On consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, particularly in view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the State, in our considered view, the ends of justice would be met, if the sentence of the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone by them. The appellants were released by this Court during the pendency of these appeals and they are now not required to surrender. The fine as imposed by the trial Court, if not already paid, would be paid within four weeks from the date of this judgment” 11. In another case titled as “Umrao Singh V. State of Haryana”, 1981 AIR (SC) 1723, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:- “After hearing counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that CRR No.2081 of 2002 5 this is a case falling under the proviso of Section 16(1)(a)(i) and therefore, for adequate and special reasons, the sentence lower than the minimum prescribed could be awarded. The High Court itself felt bound to award the minimum sentence but on merits was satisfied that if the legal position warranted the appellant could be given lesser sentence. We are in agreement with the view of the High Court. The appellant/petitioner is aged about 70 and suffering from asthama illness and has a clean past record. Besides, the percentage of deficiency that was noticed in the milk sold by him was 0.4% in the fat contents. 2. Having regard to these facts, the expression of the view of the High Court was justified. We accordingly reduce the sentence of the appellant to the period already undergone. The sentence, of fine is maintained and we are informed that he has already paid the fine. Since he is already on bail, he should be released forthwith. 3. The appeal is disposed of accordingly”. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the considered view that the reduction of sentence/imprisonment to the extent already undergone by the appellant would meet the ends of justice. 13. Consequently, the conviction of the appellant is maintained. However, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment is reduced to the one already undergone by him. The sentence of fine awarded to the CRR No.2081 of 2002 6 appellant is, however, enhanced to Rs.15,000/- besides the fine already imposed by the learned trial Court. He shall deposit this amount before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fazilka/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 14. In case, the appellant fails to comply with the direction of depositing the amount of fine with the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fazilka/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur, within the period stipulated above, this appeal shall be deemed to have been dismissed. The impugned order of sentence stands modified to the extent indicated above. 15. This appeal stands disposed of accordingly. 27.07.2010 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) mk JUDGE