Crl. Revision No.1794 of 2004 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Revision No.1794 of 2004 Date of Decision: December 23, 2010 Chanchal Singh .......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .......Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.Vivek Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Mehardeep Singh, Asstt. Advocate General, Punjab. <><><> JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. 1. The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 3.7.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur (hereinafter referred as “Appellate Court”) whereby judgment and order, dated 8.7.2002, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur (hereinafter referred as “trial Court”) convicting the petitioner was upheld and the petitioner has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- for the offence under Section 61(1)(c) of the Punjab Crl. Revision No.1794 of 2004 2 Excise Act, 1914, or in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months 2. The petitioner was tried by the learned trial Court in case FIR No.99 dated 9.11.1998, registered at Police Station Kalanaur for allegedly distilling and selling illicit liquor. The police also recovered working still and 15 kgs. of lahan (malases) from the spot. 3. Upon appreciation of evidence adduced on record, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner for a term as noticed in para 1 above. 4. The present revision petition was admitted on 16.9.2004 by this Court and the sentence of the petitioner was ordered to be suspended. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the finding of the learned Courts below and confines his submission to the question of quantum of sentence only and has prayed that sentence awarded by the learned trial Court be reduced to the period already undergone. 6. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that no leniency should be shown to the petitioner as the offence stands proved. 7. From the record, it is made out that the FIR in the instant case was registered on 9.11.1998. Thus, the petitioner has suffered a protracted trial for more than 12 years. As per record, the petitioner has already undergone for 2 months and 13 days of actual sentence and has not mis- used the concession of bail. He is not a previous convict. 8. In view of the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and in the facts and circumstances and, particularly, the protracted trial of more than 12 years and keeping in view the right of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India for speedy trial, I am of the Crl. Revision No.1794 of 2004 3 opinion that ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone and, in addition thereto, the sentence of fine is enhanced. 9. In view of the above, the conviction of the petitioner under Section 61(1)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 is maintained. However, the substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone and the sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.10,000/- besides the fine already imposed by the learned trial Court. He shall deposit this amount before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 10. In case, the petitioner fails to comply with the direction of depositing the amount of enhanced fine with the concerned Court within the period stipulated above, this petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed. 11. The impugned order of sentence stands modified to the extent indicated above. 12. Accordingly, this petition is partly allowed and the judgment/order of the Appellate Court dated 3.7.2004 and that of the Trial Court dated 8.7.2002 are modified to the extent indicated above. ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) December 23, 2010 JUDGE SRM Note: Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No