IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Revn. No. 525 of 2002 DATE OF DECISION : 10.03.2009 Harjinder Singh alias Jinda .... PETITIONER Versus State of Punjab ..... RESPONDENT CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL Persent: Mr. B.S. Baath, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. A.S. Jattana, Addl. A.G., Punjab. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. Petitioner Harjinder Singh alias Jinda was tried by the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurdaspur, in case FIR No. 111 dated 13.7.1998, registered at Police Station Dhariwal, under Section 61 (1) (c) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'). Vide judgment and order dated 14.10.2000, passed by the trial court, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months, under Section 61 (1) (c) of the Act. 2. Against the said judgment, the petitioner filed appeal, which has been dismissed by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, Crl. Revn. No. 525 of 2002 -2- vide its judgment dated 11.12.2001. 3. In this case, as per the prosecution case, on 13.7.1998, on receiving secret information at Bus Stand, Naushehra Majha Singh, the police party headed by HC Darshan Kumar, raided the disclosed place in the area of village Waraich, from where the petitioner was apprehended while distilling illicit liquor by installing a working still. The Investigating Officer cooled down the working still and dismantled it. A drum containing lahan was also recovered from the spot, which was taken into possession vide a separate recovery memo. The components of the working still were also taken into possession vide separate recovery memo. 4. The trial court, after considering the evidence available on the record, convicted and sentenced the petitioner, as indicated above. 5. During the course of arguments, when learned counsel for the petitioner was not able to point out any illegality or perversity in the judgment of conviction passed by the trial court, he submitted that a lenient view may be taken with regard to the quantum of sentence. In this regard, he submitted that out of the sentence of one year imprisonment, the petitioner has already undergone actual sentence of 3 months and 6 days, and since 13.3.2002, he is on bail. He has already suffered protracted trial for the last more than 10 years. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner is about 32 years of age and he is the first offender and he will not indulge in any such offence in future. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-State Crl. Revn. No. 525 of 2002 -3- submitted that for an offence under Section 61 (1) (c) of the Act, the minimum sentence of one year and fine, which shall not be less than Rs.5,000/- in the case of a working still, has been provided. Thus, the petitioner has been awarded with the minimum prescribed sentence. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner, while relying upon the Full Bench decision of this Court in Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab, 1980 PLR 585, which has been recently followed by this Court in Pakhar Singh v. State of Punjab, 2007 (1) RCR (Criminal) 396, submitted that mere prescription of the minimum sentence under Section 61 (1) (c) of the Act is no bar to the applicability of Sections 360 and 361 Cr.P.C. and it cannot be a special reason to deny the benefit of probation to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has not disputed this position of law and has not been able to cite any contrary law. 5. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as the Full Bench decision of this Court in Joginder Singh's case (supra) and another decision of this Court in Pakhar Singh's case (supra) keeping in view the age, antecedents of the petitioner and the fact that the incident in this case took place way back on 13.7.1998 i.e. more than ten and half years, I am of the view that no useful purpose will be served by sending the petitioner in jail at this stage, when he has already undergone 3 months and 6 days of actual sentence and is on bail since 13.3.2002. In my opinion, the ends of justice will be met, if the petitioner is released on probation. Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioner is upheld and his Crl. Revn. No. 525 of 2002 -4- sentence is modified to the extent that he be released on probation for a period of one year. He shall execute bonds to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur, with an undertaking to keep peace and be of good behaviour for a period of one year and to appear and receive the sentence during the said period, as and when called upon to do so. The amount of fine, already deposited by the petitioner, shall be treated as costs of the proceedings. 6. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of. March 10, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE