IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 2107 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION: FEBRUARY 14, 2008 Narain Singh .....PETITIONER Versus The State of Haryana and another ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG --- Present: Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. Mr.Adarsh Jain, who is present in the Court, argued that in this case the petitioner was found guilty for committing the offence under Section 61(1)(aaa) read with Section 52A of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') and for the said offence, a penalty of Rs.2,85,000/- was imposed on the petitioner by the District Collector, Excise under Section 61(1)(i) of the Act vide order dated 08.12.2004. The said penalty was imposed @ Rs.300/- per bottle as in this case 79 cases of IMFS were recovered from the vehicle of the petitioner which was being illegally transported. He submitted that in appeal, counsel for the petitioner did not argue on merits and made only one prayer to the effect that the authority should take a lenient view in the matter of imposing the penalty. Consequently, the penalty of Rs.300/- was reduced to Rs.200/-. It is the case of the petitioner that in no circumstances the penalty of more than the amount prescribed for the offence under the aforesaid provisions of the Act can be imposed on the petitioner. Since the C.W.P. No. 2107 of 2008 -2- maximum penalty under the said clause was one hundred and twenty rupees per bulk litre of liquor, therefore, the imposition of penalty even @ Rs.200/- per bottle is contrary to the said clause. In view of the aforesaid contention, we issue notice of motion to Advocate General, Haryana. Ms.Ritu Bahri, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, who is present in the court accepts notice on the asking of the court. She has brought to our notice the following amended provisions of Section 61 (1)(i) of the Act (as applicable to Haryana) which were amended by Haryana Act No.5 of 2003:- “61. Penalty of offences.--(1) Whoever, in contravention of any section of this Act, or of any rule, notification issued or given thereunder or order made, or of any license, permit or pass granted under this Act,-- (a) xx xx xx (aa) xx xx xx (aaa) xx xx xx (b) xx xx xx (c) xx xx xx (i) shall, for offences covered by clause (aaa), be liable to payment of penalty of not less than fifty rupees and not more than five hundred rupees per bottle of 750 millilitres or part thereof of liquor in respect of which offence is committed, which may be imposed by the Collector in the manner prescribed except when the case is referred to by the Collector to the court for trial.” She contends that as per the aforesaid amended provisions of the Act, the maximum penalty for committing the offence under the said clause is five hundred rupees per bottle of 750 millilitres or part thereof of liquor. Therefore, the Appellate Authority while taking a lenient view has C.W.P. No. 2107 of 2008 -3- rightly reduced the amount of penalty imposed on the petitioner from Rs.300/- to Rs.200/- per bottle and the said order does not require any interference. Counsel for the petitioner could not controvert the aforesaid amendment and the factual position. After hearing the counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any merit in this petition. In our opinion, the Appellate Authority has already taken a lenient view while reducing the amount of penalty on the petitioner from Rs.300/- to Rs.200/- per bottle and there is no scope for interference in the said order. Dismissed. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE February 14, 2008 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) vkg JUDGE