Crl. Revision No. 408 of 2009 {1} In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 408 of 2009 Date of Decision:March 31, 2009 Pardeep Kumar ---Petitioner versus State of Punjab ---Respondent Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Mr.P.S.Hundal ,Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Aman Deep Singh Rai, AAG,Punjab *** SABINA, J. Pardeep Kumar-petitioner was convicted for an offence under Section 61(1)(a)of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') vide judgment dated 4.1.2006 by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dasuya. Vide order of even date passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dasuya, petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 1500/-. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur vide judgment dated 4.2.2009. Hence, the present revision petition. Prosecution story, in brief, as noticed by the learned Appellate Crl. Revision No. 408 of 2009 {2} Court in para 2 of its judgment, is as under:- “The prosecution case in brief is that on 10.12.1998 SI Raminder Singh along with PW1 ASI Ravi Dutt, PW2 Excise Inspector Avtar Singh and other police officials, was present near the turning of village Usman Shahid and in the meantime, appellant was seen coming from the side of forest office. He was carrying a gunny bag on his head. He was apprehended on the basis of suspicion. SI Raminder Singh conducted search of the gunny bag which yielded a card board box containing 12 bottles of whisky make Winner Special. Upon further interrogation, appellant suffered disclosure statement Ex. PA disclosing that he had taken a room on rent from one Amrik Singh, situated in ward No. 6 Dasuya, that he had purchased liquor from some unknown person and that he had kept concealed liquor in the said rented room. Thereafter on the basis of that disclosure statement while in police custody, appellant got recovered 208 bottles of liquor from the specified place. Out those bottles 91 plastic bottles and 81 glass bottles were of Winner special “Whisky and 28 plastic bottles and 8 glass bottles were of Diplomat whisky. SI Raminder Singh took out 180 ML of liquor from each bottle as sample in separate nips and the remaining liquor was allowed to remain in the same bottles. Samples and the bottles were sealed by SI Raminder Singh with his seal bearing impression “RS”. Seal after use was handed over to Excise Inspector Avtar Singh. Said sealed samples and the bottles along with gunny bag and Crl. Revision No. 408 of 2009 {3} card board boxes were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PB attested by ASI Ravi Dutt and Excise Inspector Avtar Singh. SI Raminder Singh sent ruqa Ex. PW4/A to the police station on the basis of which formal FIR Ex. PW4/B was recorded by ASI Rajinder Singh by making his endorsement Ex. PW4/C and he (SI Raminder Singh) also prepared rough site plan of place of recovery and thereafter on his return to police station on the same day, he deposited the samples and case property and impression of seal with MHC Kewal Singh (PW5). On 16.12.1998 MHC Kewal Singh handed over the sealed samples and the docket containing impression of the seal to Constable Janak Raj (PW3) who on the same day, got it endorsed from the office of SSP, Hoshiarpur and on 17.12.98 he deposited the sealed samples and the docket containing impression of seal with the office of Chemical Examiner. Report of the Chemical Examiner in the shape of Ex. PX was received vide which the contents of the samples were found to be that of whisky. After competition of formal investigation challan against the accused was presented in the learned trial court.” Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments has not challenged the conviction of the petitioner under Section 16(1)(a) of the Act Learned counsel has submitted that petitioner has already undergone three months of actual sentence. Petitioner is not a previous convict and is the only bread winner of the family. Learned counsel has further submitted that the sentence of imprisonment of the petitioner be reduced to already undergone by him. Crl. Revision No. 408 of 2009 {4} Keeping in view the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is a fit case where the sentence of imprisonment is liable to be reduced to already undergone by the petitioner. Accordingly, conviction of the petitioner under Section 16(1)(a) of the Act is maintained. However, sentence of imprisonment of the petitioner is reduced to already undergone by him. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. (SABINA) JUDGE March 31, 2009 PARAMJIT