IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 674 of 2000 Date of Decision : February 16, 2010 Nirwair Singh and another ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Satnam Singh Gill, Amicus Curiae, for the petitioners. Mr. P.S.Grewal, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral) The petitioners were tried by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Talwandi Sabo, for offence under Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 on the allegations that they were found in possession of 586 bottles of country made foreign liquor on 25.9.1996. Vide judgment and order dated 12.11.1999, the trial Court convicted them for the said offence and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each. In the event of non-payment of fine, the defaulting accused was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. Aggrieved of their conviction and sentence, the petitioners filed an appeal, which was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, on 1.6.2000, except for reduction in the substantive sentence of imprisonment from two years to one year. They are now before this Crl. Revision No. 674 of 2000 -2- Court by way of present revision under Section 401 Cr.P.C., which was admitted on 16.6.2000 and they were ordered to be released on bail. As per the testimonies of PW1 SI Balbir Singh and PW2 HC Harnek Singh, both the accused were stopped by them at a naka set up on the bridge of Kotla Branch Canal, Talwandi Sabo road, Maur Khurd, on 25.9.1996, when the accused came there in a Canter, which was being driven by Nirwair Singh-petitioner while Gurdip Singh- petitioner was sitting by his side. From the search of the Canter, 586 bottles of Indian made whisky (country made foreign liquor) were recovered for which the petitioners had no valid permit. Though the petitioners had made an attempt to show that they had a valid licence for carrying the consignment by placing on record carbon copy of bill dated 24.9.1996 mark D1, besides, photocopy of bill/invoice dated 24.9.1996 (mark D2) yet the original of those documents were never produced. Therefore, documents mark D1 and D2 were rightly rejected by the learned trial Court so as to hold that the accused were not in possession of any licence to carry the liquor. As per the report Ex.PX submitted by the Chemical Examiner, the samples sent by the police were duly analyzed and found to contain alcohol. The plea of the accused that the police had not associated any independent witness at the time of alleged recovery cannot be Crl. Revision No. 674 of 2000 -3- accepted on account of the fact that both the petitioners were apprehended at about 4.00 a.m. on 25.9.1996 when the police party was holding a general naka. There was no secret information with the police against the accused. It was a case of chance recovery during night time. Infact, one Gulab Singh, Ex-Sarpanch was associated by the police party but he could not be examined by the prosecution as he was won over by the accused. In view of the above, no case is made out for interference in the conviction of the petitioners. Both the petitioners are facing the agony of criminal prosecution since the year 1996. There is no material on the file to show that any of the petitioners had been earlier involved in any such or similar crime. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners are the only bread winner of their respective families. Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances, this Court is of the view that ends of justice would be amply met by reducing the substantive sentence of imprisonment from one year to six months. However, at the same time, the fine of Rs.2,000/- imposed upon each of the petitioner can be enhanced to Rs.10,000/-. Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioners is maintained, their substantive sentences of imprisonment are reduced from one year to six months and the fine is enhanced from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.10,000/- Crl. Revision No. 674 of 2000 -4- each. In the event of non-payment of fine, the defaulting petitioner shall be required to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. But for the modification in the sentence of imprisonment and fine, as indicated above, the revision is without any merit and, therefore, dismissed. Before parting with the judgment, the Court wants to place on record its appreciation of the assistance rendered by Mr.Satnam Singh Gill, Advocate, who was appointed as amicus curiae on the last date of hearing as the counsel, who had initially filed the revision on behalf of the petitioners, failed to put in appearance despite being duly informed. ( T.P.S. MANN ) February 16, 2010 JUDGE ajay-1