Criminal Revision No. 875 of 1996 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. Criminal Revision No.875 of 1996 Date of Decision: 20.2.2008. Amrik Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. D.S.Pheruman, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, for the State. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Amrik Singh son of Inder Singh has been convicted by the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar, under Section 61(I) (a) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (for short “the Act”). He was prosecuted in case FIR No. 179 dated 21.10.1990 registered at Police Station Ghurinda under Section 61(I)(a) of the Act. The case of prosecution is that on 21.10.1990 ASI Gurdev Singh, who was heading the police party, apprehended the petitioner on a metalled road and a rubber tube was found around his neck from which about 37500 mls. of illicit liquor was recovered. According to Mr. Pheruman, Advocate, Criminal Revision No. 875 of 1996 2 appearing for the petitioner, this quantity can be reduced into 50 bottles. Mr. Pheruman has stated that since in the trial Court and the Appellate Court discrepancies and improvements were pointed out, same were not accepted and findings of facts have been returned by both the Courts below, he will not be in a position to dislodge the evidence of witnesses examined and accept the conviction awarded by the Courts below. Mr. Pheruman has further alleged that in the present case occurrence pertains to year 1990 and a period of more than 17 years has lapsed. In the headnote of judgment of trial Court, age of the petitioner was given as 42 years. Thus, he is now attaining the age of 60 years. Mr. Pheruman has further stated that in the last 17 years, the petitioner has committed no offence of this nature. The petitioner was awarded six months rigorous imprisonment by the trial Court. His appeal was dismissed. The petitioner has undergone about 25 days of his actual sentence out of six months. Taking into account the submissions made by Mr. Pheruman, it will not be appropriate to send the petitioner behind the bars after the petitioner has suffered protracted trial of 17 years. Therefore, due to his antecedents, the petitioner deserves to be released on probation. It has been held that even where the minimum sentence is prescribed, there is no bar in releasing the petitioner on probation. In view of the Full Bench judgment of this Court rendered in Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab 1980 Punjab Law Reporter 585, the petitioner is ordered to be released on probation to maintain good conduct and peace for a period of six months and not to commit any offence of this nature provided bonds to this effect are furnished before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Criminal Revision No. 875 of 1996 3 Amritsar. However, sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.10,000/- and the same shall be converted into cost of litigation. The amount of c st of litigation shall be paid by the petitioner in the Court on or before 1 .5.2008. Non deposit of cost of litigation shall render this revision petition as dismissed. With these observations, the present revision petition is disposed off. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge February 20, 2008 “DK”