Crl. Revision No. 1021 of 2003 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH * * * * * Crl. Revision No. 1021 of 2003 Date of decision : May 5, 2010 * * * * * Ranjit Singh ............Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...........Respondent * * * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH * * * * * Present: Mr. Mehar Singh Rai, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.S Sandhu, AAG, Punjab. * * * * * JORA SINGH, J. Present revision petition was preferred by Ranjit Singh to challenge the judgment dated 10.4.2003 rendered by Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur in case FIR No.125 dated 10.5.1999 registered under Sections 61(1)(c) of Punjab Excise Act at Police Station Sadar Fazilka. By the said judgment, appeal preferred by the petitioner against the judgment and order dated 12.1.2002 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Fazilka was rejected. On 10.5.1999, police party headed by Head Constable Pritam Singh, on receipt of secret information had apprehended the petitioner while distilling illicit liquor by installing a working still. Crl. Revision No. 1021 of 2003 [2] Appellant was convicted under Section 61(1)(c) of Punjab Excise Act and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four months. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the evidence on file. After arguing for some time, when learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment then submitted that the petitioner is the first offender and belongs to a poor family. Argued that occurrence is dated 10.5.1999. At that time, petitioner was 25 years old. His mother was 65/70 years old and he was the only male member in the family to earn bread and butter. Petitioner has already undergone more than four months. He requested to take a lenient view. State Counsel argued that police party headed by Head Constable, Pritam Singh received secret information to the effect that petitioner is habitual of distilling and selling illicit liquor. As per secret information, raid was conducted then the petitioner was apprehended while distilling illicit liquor by installing a working still. Petitioner is the first offender and has already undergone more than 4 months out of one year. Head Constable Pritam Singh appeared in the Court and categorically stated that he had secret information to the effect that petitioner is distilling illicit liquor by installing a working still. As per secret information, raid was conducted and the petitioner was apprehended while distilling illicit liquor. Excise inspector PW-5 Crl. Revision No. 1021 of 2003 [3] stated that lahan recovered from the accused was found partially distilled and fit for further distillation of illicit liquor. Report of the Chemical Examiner shows that sample was found to be of illicit liquor. After going through the evidence on the file, trial court rightly opined that appellant was apprehended while distilling illicit liquor while installing a working still. Impugned judgment is upheld on the point of conviction. On 10.5.1999, petitioner was apprehended while distilling illicit liquor and at that time he was 25 years old. He was the first offender and only male member in the family to earn bread and butter. Petitioner has already undergone about 4 months. Petitioner is to become hard criminal if again sent to jail to undergo imprisonment as ordered by the trial Court. Keeping in view the nature of offence and antecedents of the petitioner, I am of the opinion that ends of justice would be fully met if lenient view is taken. So instead of directing the petitioner to undergo imprisonment as ordered by the trial Court, the petitioner is directed to be released on probation for a period of one year to keep peace and be of good behaviour on furnishing probation bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000/-. Bonds to be furnished before the trial court within two months. Fine imposed by the trial Court is maintained. If the bonds are not furnished within two months as ordered then revision petition would stand dismissed automatically. May 4, 2010 ( JORA SINGH ) ritu JUDGE