Criminal Revision No.2049 of 2008 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Revision No.2049 of 2008 Date of decision: 28.1.2009 Sukhdev Singh and others ......Petitioners Versus State of Haryana .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Deepak Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Sidharth Sarup, AAG, Haryana. **** SABINA, J. Sukhdev Singh and Joginder Singh were convicted for an offence under Section 61 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (“the Act”- for short) vide judgment dated 2.8.2007 and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.5,000/- vide order dated 3.8.2007 by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 24.9.2008 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat. Hence, the present revision petition. Prosecution case, as noticed by the Appellate Court in para 2 of its judgment, is reproduced herein below:- “On 30.10.1997 police party headed by SI Shamsher Singh was going from village Dadhola to Nurpur side on Criminal Revision No.2049 of 2008 2 routine patrol duty. A wireless message was received that Sukhdev son of Harphool Singh, Joginder Singh son of Duli Chand and Rajesh son of Vedpal had kept large quantity of English liquor in Truck bearing No.HR-46-4886 parked in vacant site of dispensary in Sector 29. On receiving the said information, SI/SHO along with other police officials reached at the turn of Sector 29, where Shri Radha Krishan, the then SDM, Panipat and Shri Nar Singh Dass Dhull, the then District Revenue Officer, Panipat were also found present in their respective official vehicles. SHO left with them towards the destination. Pardeep Singh, DSP City, Panipat also reached at the spot. All of them reached on a public road in front of vacant site of dispensary in Sector 29, where Truck bearing No.HR-46-4886 was found parked. On seeing police party Joginder, Rajesh and Sukhdev fled away from the place of occurrence, who were standing besides the Truck and were seen running in the light of Jeep. Search of Truck bearing No.HR-46-4886 was conducted as per rules. It was found that the fuel tank of the Truck was half filled with the fuel and the half tank was made separate by making partition. Out of that half fuel tank 248 bottles of English wine were found, containing 111 bottles of Officers Choice, 51 bottles of Beer, 53 bottles of Criminal Revision No.2049 of 2008 3 Gold Riband and 33 bottles of Aristocrat. One sample each was separated from one bottle each of English wine Officers Choice, Aristrocrat and Gold Riband. The samples and the remaining bottles of liquor were sealed with the seal BBK. Photographs were taken by Surender, Photographer, J.K.Studio, Subzi Mandi, Panipat. Bottles were put in three bags and were sealed with the seal of BBK and were taken into police possession along with Truck bearing No.HR-46-4886 vide separate recovery memos. Signatures of the witnesses were obtained on memos. The seal was handed over to Radha Krishan, SDM after use. Sukhdev Singh was owner of the Truck and Joginder Singh was driver of the Truck. FIR under Section 61-1-14 Excise Act was registered against Sukhdev Singh, Joginder Singh and Rajesh. Investigation was carried out. Accused Rajesh was arrested on 31.10.1997, accused Sukhdev was arrestged on 6.2.1998 and accused Joginder was arrested on 7.2.1998. After completion of necessary investigation all the accused were sent to face trial for commission of offence punishable under Section 61-1-14 Excise Act and challan was presented in the Court for trial.” During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners has not challenged the conviction of the petitioners under Criminal Revision No.2049 of 2008 4 Section 61 of the Act. He has only challenged the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioners by the Courts below. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners were not previous convicts and no other criminal case was pending against them. Their sentence of imprisonment be reduced to already undergone by them. The fine imposed by the trial Court has already been deposited by the petitioners. As per the custody certificate, placed on record, the petitioners have undergone two months and seventeen days as on 4.11.2008. No other criminal case is pending against the petitioners nor they are described as previous convicts in the custody certificate. Keeping in view the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and examining the facts and circumstances of the case, it is a fit case where the sentence of imprisonment is liable to be reduced to as already undergone by the petitioners. Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioners under Section 61 of the Act is maintained. However, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to as already undergone by them. With this modification, the present revision petition is disposed of. (SABINA) JUDGE January 28, 2009 anita