IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Rev 541 of 2009 Date of decision: 26.3.2009 Maru Ram …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent Present: Mr Nandan Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr Sudhir Nehra, Addl AG Punjab. S.S.SARON, J. Heard counsel for the parties. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 2.2.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala whereby the appeal of the petitioner against the order dated 5.6.2006 passed by the learned JMIC Patiala has been dismissed. The petitioner was prosecuted for having committed an offence under Section 61(1)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act. The prosecution’s case is that on 5.11.1999 HC Vasdev Singh along with other Police officials were present in village Devinagar in connection with patrolling. HC Vasdev Singh received a secret information that the petitioner was distilling illicit liquor in his residential house by means of a working still and if a raid was conducted, heavy quantity of illicit liquor and the working still could be recovered. The information was found reliable and accordingly, a memo (Ex PC) was sent to the Police Station for registration of an FIR. FIR (Ex Cr Rev 541 of 2009 2 PC/1) was registered against the petitioner. Thereafter, a raid was conducted at his house after joining Darshan Singh son of Teja Singh as an independent witness. The petitioner was arrested and he was found operating the working still. The working still along with the illicit liquor was taken in possession by the Police. After completion of investigation, challan was filed and the petitioner was charged for having committed an offence under Section 61(1)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act on 8.9.2000. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined 5 witnesses, besides tendered documents in evidence. The independent witness – Darshan Singh was given up as having been won over. The petitioner in his statement under Section 313 CrPC stated that a false case had been registered against him. On the basis of the evidence and material on record, the learned trial Court held that the prosecution had proved the guilt of the petitioner beyond shadow of doubt. Accordingly, he was convicted to undergo RI for 6 months and pay a fine of Rs 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for one month. The petitioner, aggrieved against the said order, preferred an appeal and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide order dated 2.2.2009 dismissed the same and the petitioner was taken in custody. As on date, the petitioner has undergone about 2 months of sentence. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a first offender and there is no other case pending against him. In the circumstances, it is submitted that the petitioner may be granted the benefit of probation, keeping in view the fact that he has undergone the travails of the prosecution and the trial for the last almost 10 years. Cr Rev 541 of 2009 3 In response, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the prosecution has proved its case in all respects and a working still has been recovered, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for release on probation. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the matter. It may be noticed that the occurrence in the case is of 5.11.1999. The petitioner has faced the travails of the prosecution and trial for all these years. As on date, he has undergone more than 2 months of imprisonment. In the circumstances, it would be just and expedient if the petitioner is ordered to be released on probation. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction, the petitioner is ordered to be released on probation of good conduct for a priod of 1-1/2 years on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs 5,000/- with one surety in the like amount, to appear and receive the sentence, as and when called upon to do so during this period and in the meanwhile, to keep peace and be of a good behaviour, which shall be a condition in his bonds. The petitioner shall also file an undertaking that he shall not commit any such offence and he shall pay a sum of Rs 5,000/- as costs of the proceedings. In case he has already deposited the amount of fine, that shall be converted into costs of the proceedings. The probation bonds shall be furnished and costs of the proceedings shall be deposited within a period of one week. The petitioner, on his furnishing necessary probation bonds and depositing the amount, shall be set at liberty if not wanted in any other case. With the above modification in the sentence, the revision petition stands disposed of. 26.3.2009 ( S.S.SARON ) ASR Judge Cr Rev 541 of 2009 4