IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1552 of 2005 Date of decision: November 01, 2010 Rishi .. Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Vikram Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Rattu, DAG, Haryana for the respondent A.N. Jindal, J Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 3.8.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal, dismissing the appeal filed by the accused-petitioner (herein referred as, 'the accused') against the judgment dated 26/27.8.2003 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Guhla, convicting him for keeping in his possession 25 bottles of illicit liquor without any licene or permit and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 61 (1) (a) of Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (for brevity, 'the Act'). At the very outset, without assailing the findings of conviction, learned counsel has submitted that he being the first offender and having undergone about one month and twenty one days of the substantive sentence may be extended some leniency on the quantum of sentence. Heard. Having examined the impugned judgment, the evidence appear to have been appreciated in the right perspective. No illegality much less irregularity or perversity has been detected or pointed out warranting interference by this Court. As such, no exception to the judgment of conviction could be made at this revisional stage. Now coming to the quantum of sentence, it may be observed that the occurrence took place way back in the year 1997 and the accused has already suffered a lot due to the protracted proceedings pending against him since then. He has already undergone more than one month of the substantive sentence. No bad antecedents have come on record in order to dub him as habitual offender. He is the sole bread winner of the family and Criminal Revision No. 1552 of 2005 -2- has not repeated the offence. As such, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if some leniency is extended to him. Resultantly, while dismissing the petition, sentence passed against the petitioner is modified to that of already undergone by him. However, the sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.5000/- which would be paid by him within three months from today failing which he would serve the sentence as awarded by the trial court. Copy of the judgment be sent to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal for compliance. November 01, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge