1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 1682 of 2005 Date of Decision: 5.9.2009 *** Shiv Singh .. Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .. Respondent with Crl. Revision No. 1683 of 2005 *** Shiv Singh .. Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. R.S. Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Sra, Addl. A.G. Punjab *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. Delay in filing both the revision petitions stand condoned. In both the revision petitions, referred to above, the petitioner Shiv Singh is challenging the judgments of conviction and sentence rendered by the Courts below, holding him guilty under Section 34(6) and 34(5) of the Punjab Police Act. The petitioner was working as an judicial employee at Phagwara. He was booked in DDR No.15 dated 13.1.2004 for an offence under Section 34(5) of the Punjab Police Act and subsequently in Rapat No.23 dated 15.1.2004 under Section 34(6) of the Punjab Police Act, police Station Sultanpur Lodhi. Calendra in both the cases was presented in the Court against him and trials thereof has culminated into his conviction vide separate judgments passed by the learned trial court, which sentenced him to 2 undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 days. However, the appellate Court below, while affirming the judgment of his conviction, modified the sentence of the petitioner to one day in each case. Hence these revision petitions. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the judgments passed by the Courts below. Both the Courts below, on the strength of the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, against whom no ill-will has been attributed by the petitioner, coupled with the scientific evidence available on record proving that at the relevant time the petitioner under in the state of intoxication, rightly concluded that he is guilty of an offence punishable under Sections 34(5) and 34(6) of the Punjab Police Act. The re-occurrence of offence by the petitioner in a short span of three days also rules out his false implication in the aforesaid cases. Even otherwise, a perusal of judgments passed by the lower appellate court reveal that the petitioner had not touched the legality of the judgment passed by the trial court in respect of his conviction under the aforesaid sections, but restricted his prayer to the quantum of punishment, which has adequately been dealt with by the appellate Court below by reducing the period of sentence to one day in each case from 7 days. The Courts below after analyzing the whole material has rendered the impugned judgments, which call for no interference by this Court in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. Dismissed. A copy of this order be placed in the connected revision petition. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE September 5,2009 Jiten