CRR No. 1564 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRR No. 1564 of 2010 Date of decision: 30.06.2010 Kuldeep Singh ........ Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Amandeep Singh Cheema, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. K S Pannu, DAG, Punjab for the respondent State -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) The petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and also fined Rs.5000/- and ordered to undergo further imprisonment for two months in default of payment of fine for an offence punishable under section 61 (1) (c) of the Punjab Excise Act vide judgement and order dated May 04, 2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Mansa. The petitioner filed appeal against the judgement of the trial Court before the additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc) Fast Track Court, Mansa, who dismissed the same vide judgement dated 05.05.2010. CRR No. 1564 of 2010 2 The present revision petition has been filed against the aforesaid judgements and order passed by both the Courts below, convicting the petitioner under Section 61 (1) (c) of the Punjab Excise Act. While challenging the same, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the prosecution has failed to examine the independent witness Gurjant Singh and that the seal was also not handed over to the independent witness. This is a revision petition. The revisional Court has limited jurisdiction. Even otherwise, the learned Additional District Judge, while dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against his conviction, held as under:- “Although Gurjant Singh was not examined by the prosecution and he appeared in the witness box as DW1. The appearance of Gurjant Singh as defence witness itself proves that he has joined hands with the accused. Moreover, Gurjant Singh in his cross examination has not denied his thumb impressions on the recovery memos and he has not furnished any explanation for putting thumb impressions on these documents. This fact also shows that the recovery was effected in the presence of Gurjant Singh. Prosecution has examined only official witnesses. It is well settled that statements of official witnesses are not to be discarded only on account of their official status. The rule of precaution is that statements of official witnesses are to be scrutinised with more care and caution. A perusal of record reveals that both HC CRR No. 1564 of 2010 3 Baldev Singh and HC Pritam Singh have unanimously proved recovery of working still from the possession of the accused.” Thus, no prejudice can be said to have been caused just because Gurjant Singh was not examined as an independent witness. The petitioner has failed to point out any infirmity in the evidence. No other argument was raised. As such, the judgement and order dated May 04,2009, convicting and sentencing the petitioner passed by the trial Court is upheld. However, on the question of probation, it is not disputed by the learned counsel for the State that the petitioner is not a previous convict and he is a first offender. There is no past record of involvement of the petitioner in any criminal case. He is a young person having two children. He is the only bread winner of the family. He is suffering the agony of protracted trial for the last five years. The petitioner has already undergone almost two months of the actual sentence of one year awarded to him. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on probation under Section 4 (1) of the Probation of Offender's Act for the remaining part of the sentence under the terms and conditions to be imposed by the trial Court. Disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 30.06.2010 mohan