IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No. 582 of 2010 & Criminal Revision No. 128 of 2010 Date of Decision: 31st August, 2010 __________________________________________________________ Jaspal Singh ….Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. ….Respondent. ___________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 Nol __________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. N.K. Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. P.K. Sharma and Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Addl. Advocate Generals. __________________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, J (oral). Both these petitions are disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioner and one Bhaji have been tried and sentenced for offences under Section 61(1) (a) of Punjab Excise Act as applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs. 1000/- each and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for one month. 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 3. This judgment and sentence was confirmed by the learned Appellate Court. The petitioner now approaches this Court firstly under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in preferring this revision petition and secondly challenges the legality of the sentence imposed upon him. 4. The judgment of the learned Appellate Court was pronounced on 28.7.2008 and since that time the petitioner had been absconding. But for the intervention of this Court, he would not have been arrested and was apprehended on 18th July, 2010. This fact is sufficient to have dismissed the appeal as the petitioner was an absconder. However, on the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and after going through the record of the case and on merits also, the application for condonation of delay is allowed. 5. Looking to the revision petition, I do not find any ground to interfere with under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and I find that judgment of the Courts below has been rendered after a correct appreciation of evidence on record. 6. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, on the quantum of sentence, I direct that the petitioner shall undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and fine is increased to Rs. 5,000/-. This revision petition is disposed of in these terms. The petitioner shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and deposit the fine in terms of the order passed by this Court. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 15 days. Petition stands disposed of. August 31st, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud) (ms) Judge