Crl. Revision No.1461 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Revision No.1461 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 15.7.2010 Paramjit Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. G.S. Nagra, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Shailesh Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Rajan Gupta, J. (oral) This is a revision petition preferred by the petitioner against his conviction and sentence under Section 61 (1) (a) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (hereinafter referred to be as “the Act”). Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that on 30th July, 2002, ASI Lakhwinder Singh alongwith Excise and Taxation Officer and other police officials were present near Padiala College G.T. Road, in connection with checking, where ASI Lakhwinder Singh received secret information that Paramjit Singh accused (petitioner herein) was selling country made and English liquor in a motor Kotha in the fields of Kuldeep Singh of village Lakhnaur. On the basis of that information, ASI Lakhwinder Singh sent a Ruqa to the Police Station and he alongwith other police officials including Excise and Taxation Officer went to the spot and got recovered 360 bottles of whisky, 199 half Crl. Revision No.1461 of 2010 2 bottles and 173 quarters bottles of different marka of whisky including country made liquor. The petitioner could not produce any licence or permit for the same. Samples were taken which were sealed by ASI Lakhwinder Singh with his seal 'LS' and the said bottles were taken into possession by the police. The accused was arrested. After completion of investigation, challan against the petitioner was presented in the trial court. Finding prima facie the commission of offence under Section 61 (1) (a) of the Act, charge was framed against the accused/ petitioner, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution examined as many as five witnesses. The accused, however, did not lead any evidence in his defence. The learned trial court after appraising the evidence, convicted and sentenced the accused under Section 61 (1) (a) of the Act. The petitioner Paramjit Singh was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/-. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner filed appeal. The said appeal was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ropar, vide judgment dated 15th February, 2010. On a perusal of the judgments, I am of the considered view that the courts below correctly arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of the offence alleged against him. The conviction of the petitioner is, thus, affirmed. Even counsel for the petitioner, during the course of arguments, has not assailed the judgment of conviction. He, however, Crl. Revision No.1461 of 2010 3 pleaded for reduction in the quantum of sentence on the ground that the petitioner is a poor person. He stated that he is conscious that the scope in revision is very limited as evidence of the witnesses cannot be re-appreciated and re-evaluated. Learned counsel for the State has placed on record a custody certificate issued by Superintendent, District Jail, Roopnagar, according to which the petitioner has undergone 04 year and 25 days of his substantive sentence as on 12th July, 2010, and submits that in case the conviction of the petitioner is maintained, he shall have no objection to reduction of sentence. Taking into account totality of circumstances and the fact that the petitioner is a poor person, it is directed that the sentence awarded to the petitioner shall be reduced to that already gone. However, fine imposed, shall remain intact. Except with modification in the quantum of sentence, as indicated herein above, the revision petition is dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE 15.7.2010 'rajpal'