IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Revn. No. 479 of 2002 DATE OF DECISION : 10.03.2009 Narinder Singh .... PETITIONER Versus State of Punjab ..... RESPONDENT CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL Persent: Mr. S.K. Bawa, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. A.S. Jattana, Addl. A.G., Punjab. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. Petitioner Narinder Singh and Joginder Singh were tried by the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jagraon, in case FIR No. 91 dated 18.6.1998, registered at Police Station Sidhwan Bet, under Section 61 (1) (c) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'). Vide judgment and order dated 4.11.2000, passed by the trial court, petitioner Narinder Singh was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one month, under Section 61 (1) (c) of the Act. However, his co-accused Joginder Singh was acquitted of the charge framed against him by giving him benefit of doubt, while observing that he was not arrested at the spot. Crl. Revn. No. 479 of 2002 -2- 2. Against the said judgment, petitioner Narinder Singh filed appeal, which has been dismissed by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, vide its judgment dated 19.2.2002. 3. In this case, as per the prosecution case, on 18.6.1998, the police party headed by SI Satwant Singh, raided the house of accused Joginder Singh, from where accused Narinder Singh (Petitioner) was apprehended while distilling illicit liquor by installing a working still. However, accused Joginder Singh succeeded in running away. The Investigating Officer cooled down the working still and dismantled it. 23 ¼ bottles of illicit liquor and 300 Kgs. of lahan were also recovered from the spot, which were taken into possession vide separate recovery memos. The components of the working still were also taken into possession vide separate recovery memo. 4. The trial court, after considering the evidence available on the record, convicted and sentenced the petitioner, as indicated above. 5. During the course of arguments, when learned counsel for the petitioner was not able to point out any illegality or perversity in the judgment of conviction passed by the trial court, he submitted that a lenient view may be taken with regard to the quantum of sentence. In this regard, he submitted that out of the sentence of one year imprisonment, the petitioner has already undergone actual sentence of 2 months and 22 days, and since 8.5.2002, he is on bail. He has already suffered protracted trial for the last more than 10 years. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner is Crl. Revn. No. 479 of 2002 -3- about 35 years of age and he is the first offender and he will not indulge in any such offence in future. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-State submitted that for an offence under Section 61 (1) (c) of the Act, the minimum sentence of one year and fine, which shall not be less than Rs.5,000/- in the case of a working still, has been provided. Thus, the petitioner has been awarded with the minimum prescribed sentence. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner, while relying upon the Full Bench decision of this Court in Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab, 1980 PLR 585, which has been recently followed by this Court in Pakhar Singh v. State of Punjab, 2007 (1) RCR (Criminal) 396, submitted that mere prescription of the minimum sentence under Section 61 (1) (c) of the Act is no bar to the applicability of Sections 360 and 361 Cr.P.C. and it cannot be a special reason to deny the benefit of probation to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has not disputed this position of law and has not been able to cite any contrary law. 5. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as the Full Bench decision of this Court in Joginder Singh's case (supra) and another decision of this Court in Pakhar Singh's case (supra) keeping in view the age, antecedents of the petitioner and the fact that the incident in this case took place way back on 18.6.1998 i.e. more than ten and half years, I am of the view that no useful purpose will be served by sending the petitioner in jail at this stage, when he has already undergone 2 Crl. Revn. No. 479 of 2002 -4- months and 22 days of actual sentence and is on bail since 8.5.2002. In my opinion, the ends of justice will be met, if the petitioner is released on probation. Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioner is upheld and his sentence is modified to the extent that he be released on probation for a period of one year. He shall execute bonds to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, 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. 6. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of. March 10, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE