Criminal Revision No. 234of 2000 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 234 of 2000 (O&M) Date of decision: 3.8.2009 Balwinder Singh alias Kala and others .. Petitioners v. State of Punjab .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: None for the petitioners. Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. ... Rajesh Bindal J. The petitioners were arrayed as accused in FIR No. 125 dated 23.9.1994 registered under Sections 61-1-14 of the punjab Excise Act, 1914 (for short, `the Act') at Police Station Tanda, District Hoshiarpur. Briefly, the facts are that on 23.9.1994, when SI/SHO Kulwant Singh along with other police officials were on patrol duty in the area of Darapur, he received a secret information that Balwinder Singh @ Kala and Rajinder Singh @ Babu are coming with heavy quantity of liquor on a truck from the side of Mukerian. He along with other police officials put up a naka bandi at GT road near the turning point leading to village Moonak. After some time a truck without number plate came from the side of village Khuda and on seeing the police party, the driver of the truck turned it towards village Lodhi Chak. The police party followed the truck. After a short distance from the spot, three young persons ran away. Out of them, one was Balwinder Singh @ Kala, other one Rajinder Singh @ Babu and the third person could not be identified by them. During search of the truck, 12 plastic cans containing illicit liquor were recovered. After completion of investigation, the challan against the petitioners was presented. They were charged for the offence punishable under Section 61-1(a) of the Act, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined four witnesses. In their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the petitioners stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case. Considering the unimpeachable evidence on record in the form of Criminal Revision No. 234of 2000 [2] statements of eye witnesses, learned trial court opined that the charges against the petitioners were proved and accordingly, each petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the defaulters were to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. In appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the conviction and sentence of the petitioners was upheld, however, the sentence was reduced from one year to ten months. It is evident from the record that the petitioners have already suffered rigorous imprisonment for a period of about 3-1/2 months, as their conviction was upheld after reduction in the quantum of sentence by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 16.2.2000 and the sentence awarded to the petitioners was suspended by this court on 2.6.2000. It is also evident from the record that the petitioners are facing agony of trial for the last 15 years. The criminal jurisprudence is not only to punish the guilty to bring peace, discipline and harmony in the society but also to give opportunity to individuals to reform themselves. Within the parameters of law, an attempt has to be made to afford an opportunity to the individual to reform himself and lead the life of a normal, useful member of the society. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Karamjit Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.), 2001(9) SCC 161, considering this aspect of the matter, observed as under: “........ Punishment in criminal cases is both punitive and reformative. The purpose is that the person found guilty of committing the offence is made to realise his fault and is deterred from repeating such acts in future. The reformative aspect is meant to enable the person concerned to relent and repent for his action and make himself acceptable to the society as a useful social being. In determining the question of proper punishment in a criminal case, the court has to weigh the degree of culpability of the accused, its effect on others and the desirability of showing any leniency in the matter of punishment in the case. An act of balancing is, what is needed in such a case; a balance between the interest of the individual and the concern of the society; weighing the one against the other. Imposing a hard punishment on the accused serves a limited purpose but at the same time, it is to be kept in mind that relevance of deterrent punishment in matters of serious crimes affecting society should not be undermined. Within the parameters of the law an attempt has to be Criminal Revision No. 234of 2000 [3] made to afford an opportunity to the individual to reform himself and the lead the life of a normal, useful member of the society and make his contribution in that regard. Denying such opportunity to a person who has been found to have committed offence in the facts and circumstances placed on record would only have a hardening attitude towards his fellow beings and towards society at large. Such a situation, has to be avoided, again within the permissible limits of law.” From the material on record, I do not find any justification to interfere in the conviction of the petitioners. Two courts have already gone into the evidence led by the prosecution and the defence and have opined that the petitioners are guilty of offence committed by them. Re-appreciation of evidence does not fall within the domain of revisional jurisdiction. The view expressed by the courts below on appreciation of evidence is justified on the basis of material on record. Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioners is upheld. However, I find some mitigating circumstance as far as quantum of sentence awarded to the petitioners is concerned. They had been facing agony of trial for the last 15 years and in the process for the offence committed by them, they have learnt enough lesson not to repeat any such crime in future as in the process of trial they had wasted a lot of their man hours on which they could work and earn. They should be given an opportunity to reform themselves. Keeping in view the above observations, in my opinion, sentence of about 3-1/2 months already suffered by the petitioners will serve the object for which they were held guilty and convicted. Accordingly, while upholding the conviction of the petitioners, substantive sentence awarded to them is reduced to 3-1/2 months imprisonment for commission of offence under Section 61-1-14 of the Act. Levy of fine is upheld. In default of payment of fine, the petitioners will undergone further imprisonment for a period of two months. The petition is disposed of accordingly. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 3.8.2009 mk