Criminal Revision No. 1159 of 2005 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1159 of 2005 (O&M) Date of decision: 7.4.2010 Binder Singh and another .........Petitioner Vs State of Punjab .........Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present: Mr. B.S.Bhalla, Advocate, for the petitioners Mr. R.S.Rawat, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab HARBANS LAL, J. This revision has been directed against the judgment dated 7.6.2005 passed by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Moga whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by the accused Binder Singh and Buta Singh against the judgment/order of sentence dated 29.7.2003 rendered by the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moga vide which he convicted and sentenced these accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each under Section 61(1)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914(for brevity the Act) and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine, the defaulter to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. The facts in brief are that on 26.2.2000, ASI Gurdeep Singh amongst other police officials happened to be present at Sekhan chowk in connection with patrolling. This ASI received secret information that Binder Criminal Revision No. 1159 of 2005 (O&M) 2 Singh alias Bohar and Buta Singh were distilling illicit liquor by working a still in the house of Binder Singh and if raid is conducted, the working still and large quantity of 'lahan' and illicit liquor can be recovered. This information was embodied into a ruqa, which was sent to the Police Station. Thereafter, the house of Binder Singh was raided. The above mentioned accused were found distilling illicit liquor by operating a working still in a store adjoining the residential room of accused Binder Singh. The working still was dismantled and cooled down. The components, 'lahan' and the illicit liquor were seized. The illicit liquor measuring 180 mls was drawn from the bottle to serve as sample. The accused were arrested. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was laid in the court for trial of the accused. The accused was charged under Section 61(1)(a),(b) and (c) of the Act to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. On close of the prosecution evidence, when examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. both the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against them. In their defence, they examined DW-1 Gajjan Singh. After hearing the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State, the learned defence counsel and examining the evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced both the accused as noticed at the outset. Feeling aggrieved therewith, they went up in appeal which was dismissed by the court of learned Additional Sessions judge, Moga. Being undaunted and dissatisfied with their conviction and sentence, they have preferred this revision. Criminal Revision No. 1159 of 2005 (O&M) 3 I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection. Realizing that he would not be able to persuade the Court to take a view contrary to the findings returned by both the Courts below, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that he does not wish to assail the conviction recorded by both the Courts below in any manner. On analyzing and scrutinizing the prosecution evidence with due care and caution, it transpires that no exception can be taken to the findings returned by the said Courts. Consequently, conviction of both the petitioners is maintained. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have been facing the agony of trial since 2000 and that being so their sentence may be slashed to the already undergone. I have well considered this submission. Concededly, the petitioners have undergone 1 month of the actual sentence. This incidence is 10 years old. The petitioners while on bail during the pendency of this revision did not make misuse of this opportunity. Taking into consideration the cumulative facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence of both the petitioners is reduced to the already undergone (1 month). However, the fine imposed by the learned trial Court i.e. Rs.5000/- on each petitioner is enhanced to Rs.15,000/- each. The difference of fine shall be deposited by the petitioners within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the judgment. In the event of default to deposit this amount, the defaulter shall undergo imprisonment for three months. With this modification in the order of Criminal Revision No. 1159 of 2005 (O&M) 4 sentence, this revision fails and is dismissed. Since the revision has been decided, all pending Criminal Miscellaneous,if any, also stand disposed of. (HARBANS LAL) JUDGE April 7, 2009 RSK NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes/No