In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … Crl. Revision No. 1725 of 2003 Date of decision: September 6,2010 Milkh Raj ..Petitioner. Versus State of Punjab ..Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N.Jindal Present: Mr. Sandeep Jasuja, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Chaudhary, AAG, Punjab for the respondent ... A.N.Jindal,J.(Oral) Assailed in this appeal is the judgment dated 4.7.2003 passed by the Appellate Court convicting Milkh Raj, accused/appellant (herein referred as 'the accused') and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 61 (i) (a) of Punjab Excise Act. In nutshell, the allegations are that on 12.5.1997 Chiranji Lal Sub Inspector PW5, along with other police officials, was present at Bus Stand Abohar in connection with the checking. He also associated Bal Krishan Excise Inspector and Nihal Singh Peon of Excise Department at that place and continued the checking. In the meantime, he received a secret information that Milkh Raj accused and his sons Babu and Bunti used to import country made liquor from Rajasthan for sale. Believing information to be reliable, SI Chiranji Lal sent ruqa Ex.PW4/A to the police Station on the basis of which formal FIR Ex.PW4/B was registered . On search of his house 1040 pouches; each containing 200 Mls. of country made liquor of Rajasthan State and 55 empty pouches were recovered from the basement situated in one corner of the kitchen of this house. 250 pouches each were put in four gunny bags and the remaining 40 pouches were put in fifth gunny bag. The completion of the investigation was followed by the presentation of the report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The accused was accordingly charged under Section 61(i) (a) of the Punjab Excise Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During trial, the prosecution examined as many as six witnesses. The accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and pleaded his false implication in the case. Ultimately, the trial ended in conviction. His appeal also failed. Without making exception to the impugned judgment of conviction, the counsel has straightway sought indulgence of this court on the quantum of sentence. The petitioner has already undergone 3 months 24 days of the substantive sentence. Record also transpires that both the courts below have returned a finding of fact regarding guilt of the accused on proper appreciation of the evidence. To bring home guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined Narinder Singh Naib Tehsildar PW1, Sukhdial Singh Constable PW2, Vimal Kumar Municipal Commissioner, PW3, Chiranji Lal SHO PW 4, Klamjit Singh, HC, PW5 and Pardeep Kumar SHO PW6. The impugned judgment also sans any perversity, irregularity much less illegality warranting interference by this Court, therefore, the conviction recorded by the courts below does not call for any interference. Now coming to the quantum of sentence, the occurrence in this case took place in May, 1997; the accused has already undergone three months 24 days of the substantive sentence and has also suffered a lot of agony due to protracted proceedings for the last so many years. In such circumstances, it would be in the fitness of things, if the sentence of rigorous imprisonment is reduced to six months under Section 61(i)(a) of the Excise Act, without altering the sentence of fine. Ordered accordingly. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur for compliance. September 6,2010 (A.N.JINDAL) nk JUDGE