Criminal Revision No.624 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.624 of 2006 Date of Decision: 15.03.2011 Anil Kumar and another ... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Ranvir S. Chauhan, D.A.G. Punjab, for the respondent- State. NAWAB SINGH.J (ORAL) By this revision, petitioners have challenged the judgment dated March 9th, 2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, whereby conviction of the petitioners under Section 61 (1) (a) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (for short 'the Act') was maintained but the sentence imposed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jalandhar, was reduced from one year to three months. The sentence of fine of Rs.500/- was kept intact. 2. The story of the prosecution, in brief, is that on September 7th, 1998, Police of Police Station Division No.7, Jalandhar intercepted the petitioners at Garba Chowk, Jalandhar while carrying 341 ½ bottles of liquor of different brands in Maruti Van bearing No. PB-08-Q-3499. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that petitioners were employees of Kamal Khanna (DW-1) partner of Shanker Traders, Jalandhar. On the day of alleged occurrence, petitioners were carrying liquor from his wholesale vend in Jalandhar Cantt. to the retail vend at Mithapur under a valid Permit (Exhibit D-1) Criminal Revision No.624 of 2006 2 so, no offence under Section 61 (1) (a) of the Act was made out. 4. The most important witness in this case is Pritpal Singh (DW-2), Excise Inspector, Patiala who verified the Transit Permit (Exhibit D-1) issued by the Inspector of the Excise Department. He also proved that vide this Permit, Shanker Traders could transport 341 ½ bottles of liquor from wholesale vendor L-13, Jalandhar Cantt. to their retail shop, that is, M/s Shanker Traders L- 14, Mirchpur. 5. In view of this overwhelming evidence, it can not be said that transportation or possession of liquor was in contravention of any of the provisions of the Act. 6. Thus, in considered opinion of this Court, both the Courts below fell in error in convicting and sentencing the petitioners. Hence, the revision is accepted and the judgments and orders under challenge are set-aside. The petitioners are acquitted of the charge. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 15.03.2011 SN