In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 606 of 2003 Date of decision: March 06, 2009 Mohinder Singh ... Petitioner vs. State of Punjab ... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Bhardwaj, Addl. A.G. Punjab for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J Challenge in this petition is to the judgment dated 6.3.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, dismissing the appeal filed by the accused-petitioner Mohinder Singh (herein referred as 'the petitioner') against the judgment dated 29.3.2001 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar, convicting the petitioner under Section 61 (1) © of the Punjab Excise Act and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1- ½ years and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- The brief resume of the facts is that on 20.10.1995, the police party, on the basis of secret information that the petitioner was distilling illicit liquor by running a working still in his fields at village Devidass Pura, conducted raid, apprehended the petitioner while distilling the illicit liquor. Amongst other articles, a boiler containing 15 kgs of lahan and plastic Can containing illicit liquor were recovered. A sample nip of 180 mls was taken from the Can and on measurement the remaining liquor was found to be four bottles of 750 mls each. A ruqa was sent on the basis of which FIR was registered. On completion of the investigation, challan against the petitioner was Crl. Revision No. 606 of 2003 -2- *** presented in the Court. The petitioner was charged for the offence under Sections 61 (1) (c) of Punjab Excise Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. In order to substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined ASI Jagjit Singh (PW1), EI Harbhajan Singh (PW2), HC Wazi Singh (PW3), LC Sikander Singh (PW4) and C. Gurnam Singh (PW5). When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. he denied all the allegations and pleaded his false implication in the case. He examined Dalip Singh (DW1), Kawaljit Singh (DW2) and Sarja Singh (DW3) in his defence. Ultimately the trial ended in conviction. The appeal preferred by him also failed. Arguments heard. Record perused. At the very out set, without assailing the conviction it is urged that the petitioner is a first offender, having suffered lot of agony on account of the protracted proceedings and already undergone four months after conviction and about 15 days during trial, deserves to be extended a lenient view on the quantum of sentence. Having examined the impugned judgment, it appears to have been passed on appreciation of the evidence in the right perspective. No irregularity much less illegality has been pointed out or detected resulting into miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the judgment of conviction is maintained. As regards the quantum of sentence, it may be observed that the occurrence took place way back in the year 1995 and the petitioner has suffered a lot of agony on account of the protracted proceedings. He Crl. Revision No. 606 of 2003 -3- *** has already undergone about four and half months out of the substantive sentence. No bad antecedents have been brought on record in order to dub him as habitual offender. Consequently, I deem it a fit case where some leniency could be extended to the petitioner. Resultantly, the instant petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence to that of already undergone by him without alteration in the sentence of fine. March 06, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge