Crl. Rev.No.672 of 2000 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Revision No.672 of 2000 Date of Decision: 20 - 1 - 2010 Bhura Singh and another .....Petitioners v. State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Mr.Narinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.J.S.Bhullar, AAG, Punjab. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Bhura Singh and Roop Singh sons of Boria Singh, residents of village Gurne Khurd, District Mansa have filed the present revision petition. They were tried in case FIR No.48 dated 27.6.1995 registered at Police Station Bhikhi under Section 61/1/14 of the Punjab Excise Act. Prosecution case set out against them is that on receipt of secret information, a police party found them distilling illicit liquor and they were operating working still in their cotton fields near Adampur. To prove the guilt, prosecution examined Natha Ram PW1, ASI Gurdarshan Singh PW2, HC Harbans Singh recovery witness PW3, SI Malkiat Singh PW4 and Constable Swaran Singh PW5. Report of Chemical Crl. Rev.No.672 of 2000 [2] Examiner Ex.PG was tendered in evidence. The trial Court found the evidence of witnesses trust worthy and convicted the petitioners to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, they were to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months each. Aggrieved against the judgment of the trial Court, petitioners had filed an appeal. The Appellate Court concurred with the findings recorded by the trial Court and affirmed the conviction. Mr.Narinder Singh, counsel for the petitioners has fairly stated that he is conscious of the fact that this Court will not re-appreciate and do re-appraisal of the evidence while exercising revisional jurisdiction. Counsel has also submitted that there is no patent illegality or irregularity which deserves attention of this Court. Thus, counsel say that he will not assail the conviction but pray in alternate that taking into consideration that occurrence in the present case had taken place on 27.6.1995 and 15 years are going to elapse, the petitioners be released on probation, as in the last 15 years, they had committed no offence and are leading their life peacefully and as a law abiding citizen. Counsel further submit that petitioners were taken into custody on 29.5.2000 and were released on bail on 16.6.2000. Hence, they had undergone about 17 days. Counsel has placed reliance on a judgment rendered by a Single Bench of this Court in Pakhar Singh v. State of Punjab, 2007(1) RCR (Criminal) 396, wherein reliance was placed on a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Isher Dass v. State of Punjab, AIR 1972 SC 1295 and a Full Bench of this Court in Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab, 1980 PLR 585. Hon'ble Apex Court in Ishar Dass's case (supra) had held that even in cases where minimum sentence is prescribed, Crl. Rev.No.672 of 2000 [3] convict can be released on probation. This Court is of the view that alternative prayer made by counsel for the petitioners can be accepted. Reasons spelt out by him and noticed above as mitigating circumstances, i.e. protracted trial, antecedents of the petitioners and their age are such that an opportunity can be granted to the petitioners to reform themselves. For the reasons mentioned above, the present revision is partly allowed. Order of conviction passed against the petitioners is maintained, whereas the order of sentence is set aside and the petitioners are ordered to be released on probation for a period of one year. They shall execute bonds to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mansa with an undertaking to keep peace and be of good behaviour for a period of one year and to appear and receive the sentence during the said period as and when called upon to do so. The amount of fine already deposited by the petitioner shall be treated as costs of the proceedings. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) January 20, 2010. JUDGE RC