Criminal Revision No.1879 of 2005(O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... CRIMINAL REVISION No.1879 of 2005 Decided on : February 23, 2010 Kala Singh ... Petitioner VERSUS The State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Sant Pal Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.C.S.Brar, Deputy Advocate General for the respondent – State of Punjab. A.N.JINDAL, J.- Kala Singh – petitioner has assailed the judgment dated 6.9.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Moga, whereby, his appeal against the judgment dated 14.10.2004 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Moga, convicting him under Section 61(1)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (herein for short `the Act') and sentencing to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, was dismissed. In nutshell, the facts are that on 20.09.1999 HC Sukhwinder Singh (herein referred as the Investigating Officer) along with other police officials was patrolling village Nurpur Hakima, where he received secret information that the accused was in habit of distilling and selling illicit liquor and if a raid is conducted, then huge quantity of Lahan, a working Criminal Revision No.1879 of 2005(O&M) [2] still and illicit liquor could be recovered. Believing the information to be reliable, a ruqa was sent through PHG Nishan Singh to the police station for registration of a case. The Investigating Officer raided at the disclosed place and caught the accused while operating the working still and distilling illicit liquor. The Investigating Officer apprehended the accused; took the case property into possession; recorded the statements of the witnesses and on receiving the reports of the Excise Inspector Ex.PD and the Chemical Examiner Ex.PA, and also completing all other necessary formalities, the report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was presented against the accused. The petitioner was charged under Section 61(1)(c) of the Excise Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During trial, the prosecution examined as many as five witnesses. When examined under Section 313 CrPC, the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his false implication in the case. Ultimately, the trial ended in conviction. Heard. Though there is no independent witness in the present case, yet the consistent testimonies of the official witnesses are sufficient in order to establish the prosecution case. The ocular version finds corroboration from the report of the Excise Inspector Ex.PD and Chemical Examiner's report Ex.PA. Anyway, the Courts below have returned concurrent findings of fact regarding guilt of the petitioner on proper appreciation of the evidence, which need no interference. Criminal Revision No.1879 of 2005(O&M) [3] Faced with this situation, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has sought extension of the benefits of probation towards the petitioner by taking some lenient view. He also states that the petitioner has already undergone more than 1½ months out of the substantive sentence. Records before me transpire that the occurrence took place way back in the year 1999. The petitioner has already suffered lot of agony due to protracted proceedings for the last more than eleven years. He has not repeated the offence. No bad antecedents have been brought on record, so as to dub him as habitual offender. Thus, while taking a lenient view, the sentence is modified to the extent that the petitioner is extended the benefit of probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on his executing bond in the sum of Rs.5000/- with one surety, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for a period of one year within which period he will continue to be of good behaviour and keep peace and in case of breach of conditions of the bond, he will be ready to serve the sentence as and when called for. The amount of fine is converted into cost of litigation. With the above modification in the sentence, the petition is dismissed. The 23rd Day of February, 2010 ( A.N.JINDAL ) 'gian' JUDGE