CRR No. 598 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR No. 598 of 2011 Date of decision: 25.5.2011 Mukhtiar Singh ........ Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ........ Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JORA SINGH Present: Mr. R.S. Sidhu, Advocate, for Mr. Jasbir Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. P.S. Grewal, AAG, Punjab. JORA SINGH, J. Mukhtiar Singh, preferred this revision to challenge the judgment dated 5.2.2011, rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, in Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 2008. By the said judgment, appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.10.2008, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur, in case FIR No. 388 dated 20.9.2000, under Section 61 (1) (c) of the Punjab Excise Act, Police Station Sadar, Ferozepur, was dismissed. Vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.10.2008, petitioner was convicted under Section 61 (1) (c) of the Punjab Excise Act and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 year and to pay a fine for ` 5000/- and in CRR No. 598 of 2011 -2- default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 20.9.2000, police party headed by HC Naveen Kumar, on receipt of secret information had sent ruqa to the police station on the basis of which formal FIR was recorded. Raid was conducted and the petitioner-accused was found distilling illicit liquor by means of working still. After completion of investigation, challan was presented in Court. Accused was charge-sheeted under Section 61 (1) (c) of the Punjab Excise Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined 5 witnesses namely PW-1 HC Naveen Kumar, PW-2 HC Paramjit Singh, PW-3 MHC Joginder Singh, PW-4 Excise Inspector Balwinder Singh and PW-5 Constable Harbans Singh. After close of the prosecution evidence, statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. Accused denied all the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded to be innocent and ultimately, petitioner-accused was convicted and sentenced as stated aforesaid. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that petitioner is 25 years old. He is a labourer and is the first offender. Impugned judgment is not challenged on the point of conviction and only requested to take lenient view. While issuing notice of motion, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is not pressing the petition on merits and is only praying for some leniency on the point of sentence. CRR No. 598 of 2011 -3- Learned State counsel has produced the custody certificate of the petitioner and the same is ordered to be taken on record. According to the custody certificate, petitioner has already undergone about 3 ½ months out of the actual sentence of one year. Petitioner is the first offender and is the only bread winner of his family. Petitioner is 25 years old labourer and has already undergone near about 3½ months out of the actual sentence of one year. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I take lenient view and direct the petitioner to be released on probation on furnishing probation bonds in the sum of ` 1000/- with one surety in the like amount for a period of one year to keep peace and to be of good behaviour, with direction to undergo imprisonment in case of breach of condition of probation bonds. For the reasons recorded above, revision petition without merits is dismissed with modification on the point of sentence. May 25, 2011 ( JORA SINGH ) rishu JUDGE