IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 285 of 2003 Date of Decision : February 19, 2010 Bansi Lal ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present: Mr. Vikash Sharma, Advocate Ms. Shalini Attri, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral) The petitioner was tried by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jind, for an offence under Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act for being found in possession of ten bottles of illicit liquor. Vide judgment and order dated 21/22.3.2002, the trial Court convicted the petitioner for the said offence and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four months and to pay a fine of Rs.600/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The amount of fine, as awarded, was deposited by the petitioner at the time of his sentence. Aggrieved of his conviction and sentence, the petitioner filed an appeal but the same was dismissed by Sessions Judge, Jind, on 15.1.2003. According to the prosecution, on 27.8.1996 when ASI Chhotu Crl. Revision No. 285 of 2003 -2- Ram alongwith other police officials was on patrol duty at T-point of village Katwal, the petitioner was seen coming with a plastic can on his right shoulder. On seeing the police party, he moved back. This aroused suspicion in the mind of ASI Chhotu Ram who apprehended the petitioner. On search of the plastic can, it was found to contain illicit liquor, which on measurement, was found to be ten bottles. Ruqa was sent to the Police Station for registration of the case. The petitioner was arrested. After the completion of the investigation, the final report was submitted against the petitioner. The petitioner had pleaded not guilty to the charge under Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act and claimed trial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW1 Constable Ramesh Kumar, PW2 Constable Krishan Kumar, PW3 HC Subhash Chander and PW4 ASI Chhotu Ram. The plea of the accused was of simply denial. The Courts below believed the prosecution version and convicted and sentenced the petitioner, as mentioned above. The conviction of the petitioner does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses is found to be consistent and, therefore, sufficient to hold the petitioner guilty of the offence alleged against him. Crl. Revision No. 285 of 2003 -3- Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is a previous offender, as mentioned in the conviction slip attached with the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., he cannot be granted the benefit of probation. The petitioner has been facing criminal proceedings since August, 1996 for being found in possession of 10 bottles of illicit liquor. He was convicted and sentenced by the trial Court in March, 2002. His appeal was dismissed by the lower appellate Court on 15.1.2003. On that very day, the petitioner was taken into custody. The present revision filed by the petitioner was admitted on 13.2.2003 and he was ordered to be released on bail. He has, thus, remained behind the bars as a convict for about a month. A period of more than seven years has elapsed since then. For an offence under Section 61(1)(a) of the Act, a minimum sentence of three months has been provided. However, in Gopal Singh Vs. State of Haryana, 2003(3) RCR (Crl.) 504 the sentence of the petitioner therein, who stood convicted under Section 61(1)(c) of the Act, was reduced to that already undergone by him as the case was registered in January, 1985 for recovery of 20 kgs. of semi-distilled lahan and eighteen years had passed since then and the trial took almost five years and the revision was pending for the last thirteen years. Despite the fact that a minimum sentence of six months had been provided, the Court thought it appropriate to reduce the sentence to that already undergone. The relevant observations are reproduced here-below:- “It would be seen that the case against the petitioner had Crl. Revision No. 285 of 2003 -4- been registered in January, 1985 for recovery of 20 kgs. of semi-distilled lahan. He was convicted vide judgment of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa on 25.5.1990, i.e., after a period of five years. The appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge was dismissed on 16.7.1990 and since then the matter is pending in this Court. To my mind, to send the petitioner back to serve his sentence at this belated stage would be rather unfair as more than eighteen years have passed since the date of the petitioner's arrest. Even his trial took almost five years and the petition is pending in this Court for the last thirteen years. He appears to be even otherwise untraceable. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the sentence should be reduced to that already undergone despite the fact that a minimum sentence of six months has been provided. This petition is accordingly disposed of with the above observations”. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and the judgment in the case of Gopal Singh (supra), the conviction of the petitioner is maintained. However, his sentence of imprisonment is reduced from rigorous imprisonment for four months to that already undergone by him. The revision is, accordingly, disposed of. ( T.P.S. MANN ) February 19, 2010 JUDGE ajay-1