IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 304 of 2005 Date of decision: November 17, 2010 Gurdev Singh .. Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. A.K. Lamdharia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.S. Rawat, AAG, Punjab for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 21.1.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ferozepur, dismissing the appeal filed by the accused-petitioner (herein referred as, 'the accused') against the judgment dated 19.2.2003 passed by the Additional Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- under Section 61 (1) © of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (for brevity, 'the Act'). The accused was found in possession of 10 bottles of illicit liquor about which he could not produce any permit or licence. At the very outset, without assailing the findings of conviction, learned counsel has submitted that he being the first offender and having undergone about two months of the substantive sentence may be extended some leniency on the quantum of sentence. Heard. Having examined the impugned judgment, the evidence appear to have been appreciated in the right perspective. No illegality much less irregularity or perversity has been detected or pointed out warranting interference by this Court. As such, no exception to the judgment of conviction could be made at this revisional stage. Now coming to the quantum of sentence, it may be observed that the occurrence took place way back in the year 1998 and the accused has already suffered a lot due to the protracted proceedings pending against him since then. He has already undergone about two months of the substantive sentence. No bad antecedents have come on record in order to Criminal Revision No. 304 of 2005 -2- dub him as habitual offender. As such, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if some leniency is extended to him. Resultantly, while dismissing the petition, sentence passed against the petitioner is modified to that of already undergone by him without alteration in the sentence of fine. Copy of the judgment be sent to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur for compliance. November 17, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge