Criminal Revision No.1961 of 2002 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1961 of 2002 Date of Decision: May 22, 2009 Balwant Singh ...........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ..........Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: None for the petitioner. Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab ** Sabina, J. Petitioner was convicted under Section 6(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (`the Act' for short) vide judgment dated 24.11.2001 by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fazilka Vide order of even date, petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur vide judgment dated 23.8.2002. Hence, the present revision petition. The brief facts of the case, as noticed by the Appellate Court in para 2 of its judgment, are as under:- “Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 7.11.1994 Head Criminal Revision No.1961 of 2002 2 Constable Ramesh Kumar alongwith other police officials was present in the area of village Lamochar Kalan where he received secret information that appellant-accused Balwant Singh is distilling illicit liquor on canal bank in the area of village Murakwala and on the basis of this information, H.C.Ramesh Kumar, the Investigating Officer of this case sent ruqa Ex.P1 to the police station and then went to the disclosed place where he apprehended appellant Balwant Singh while distilling illicit liquor and was feeding fire into nearth at the time of apprehension. He dismantled working still and cooled it down and then took into possession various component of the working still including drum boiler weighing 80 kilograms of lahan and Pipa receiver containing 5 bottles of illicit liquor. He also prepared rough site plan of place of recovery and completed the investigation of the case and then filed challan in the learned trial Court for trial." Nobody has appeared on behalf of the petitioner. On the last date also nobody had appeared on behalf of the petitioner and the case was adjourned for today. I have gone through the record of the case with the able assistance of the learned counsel for the State. In the present case, the petitioner was apprehended on 7.11.1994 on the basis of the secret information. The petitioner was distilling illicit liquor with the help of a working still. The working still was dismantled and was taken in possession. 80 kilogram of Lahan and `Pipa' Criminal Revision No.1961 of 2002 3 receiver containing 5 bottles of illicit liquor were recovered and were taken in possession. Prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined PW2, Head Constable Ramesh Kumar and PW4 Head Constable Harbhajan Singh. The said witnesses have duly proved the prosecution case. The officials witnesses were acting in discharge of their official duties and hence, had no reason to falsely involve the petitioner in this case. The said witnesses were duly cross-examined during trial but their testimony with regard to recovery of illicit liquor and working still could not be shattered. Hence, non-joining of independent witness, in the facts and circumstance of the present case, cannot be said to be fatal to the prosecution case. The judgments of the Courts below whereby the petitioner was convicted for an offence under Section 61(1)(a) of the Act do not call for interference. However, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has already undergone more than two months of actual sentence and is facing criminal proceedings since the year 1994, it would be just and expedient to reduce the sentence qua the imprisonment to already undergone by the petitioner. Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioner under Section 61(1)(a) of the Act is maintained and the sentence qua the imprisonment of the petitioner is reduced to already undergone by him. Petition stands disposed of. (Sabina) Judge May 22, 2009 arya