In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 1045 of 2002 Date of decision: 24.03.2009 Baldev Singh ... Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab ... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: None. A.N. Jindal, J This revision petition has arisen out of the judgment dated 9.5.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner-accused (herein referred as 'the petitioner') against the judgment dated 13.12.2000 convicting and sentencing the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- under Section 61 (1) (a) of the Punjab Excise Act, for keeping in his possession 30- ¼ bottles of illicit liquor. The brief resume of facts is that on 18.8.1999, HC Surmukh Singh (PW1) along with some other police officials was proceedings from village Subhanpur to Village Boot and when they were a little short of village Paharipur, the petitioner was seen coming carrying a gunny bag on his head. On suspicion, he was apprehended and on search, a can plastic, containing illicit liquor was recovered from the gunny bag. On measurement, it was found to contain 30- ¼ bottles. A nip of illicit liquor was taken as sample. Ruqa was sent on the basis of which, the case was registered against the petitioner. On completion of the investigation, he was challaned Charge was framed to which he denied as incorrect. The prosecution led evidence in support of the allegations. Ultimately, the trial ended in conviction and appeal preferred by him also failed. Without assailing the judgment of conviction, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he being the first Crl. Revision No. 1045 of 2002 -2- *** offender could be extended benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act. To the contrary, Mr. Praduman Yadav, DAG, Haryana urged that in view of the minimum sentence provided for the offence, no benefit of probation could be extended to him. Having examined the issue in depth, it may be observed that the issue with regard to extending of benefit of probation in cases where minimum sentence is provided by the Act, was dealt with by this Court way back in the year 1980 in the case of Joginder Singh vs. The State of Punjab, 1980 Crl. L.J. 1218 (1) wherein Full Bench answered the reference in the following words:- “21. To conclude on the legal aspect, therefore, it must be held that the mere prescription of the minimum sentence under Section 61 (1) (c) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 is no bar to the applicability of Section 360 and 361 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and the same is not a special reason for denying the benefit of probation to a person convicted thereunder. In the alternative it is equally no bar to the applicability of Sections 4 and 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act. The answer to the question posed at the outset is rendered in the negative.” Similarly, this Court in case Ramesh Chand alias Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Haryana, 2005 (1) RCR (Crl.) 332, while relying upon the judgments delivered by the Apex Court in case Babulal Hargovindas vs. State of Gujrat, AIR 1971 SC 1277, Ajitprasad Ramkishan Singh vs. The State of Maharashtra, AIR 1972 SC 1631, and Jog Dhian vs. State of Haryana, 2001 (2) RCR (Criminal) 331, observed that in cases where minimum sentence is provided, to extend benefit of probation to the petitioner in the circumstances of the case, was no bar. Now while returning to the facts of the present case, the occurrence took place way back in the year 1999. The petitioner has already suffered a lot due to the pendency of the protracted proceedings. He appears to be first offender as no bad antecedents have been brought on Crl. Revision No. 1045 of 2002 -3- *** record so as to dub him as habitual offender. Resultantly, while dismissing the petition, sentence passed against the petitioner is modified to the extent that he be released on probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1956 on his executing a bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala for a period of one year within which period he shall continue to be of good behaviour and keep peace and in case of breach of conditions of the bond, he will be ready to serve sentence as and when called for. However, the fine of Rs.2000/- is converted into costs of litigation. Copy of the judgment be sent to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala for compliance. March 24, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge