IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 307 of 2000 Date of decision: March 22, 2010 Chhota Singh .. Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. B.S. Kathuria, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. C.S. Brar, DAG, Punjab. A.N. Jindal, J Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 24.1.2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa, dismissing the appeal filed by the accused-petitioner (herein referred as 'the accused') against the judgment dated 29.4.1999 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Mansa, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- under Section 61 (1) (C) of the Punjab Excise Act (herein referred as 'the Act'). The factual matrix of the case is that on 3.7.1994, HC Jagmail Singh along with other police officials was going for patrolling towards village Akkanwali, Hhunir, Lakhmirwala etc. and when he was about one kilometer short of village Lakhmirwala, a secret information was received that the accused was distilling illicit liquor by installing a working still at his residence. Believing the information to be reliable, he sent ruqa to the police station on the basis of which formal FIR was registered. A raiding party was constituted. After associating Chowkidar Darshan Singh in the raiding party, a raid was conducted and the accused was found distilling illicit liquor by setting up a working still. The working still was dismantled, cooled down and the components of the working still were taken into possession. A sample of the illicit liquor was drawn and the remaining liquor on measurement came to be six bottles. The accused was arrested and completion of the investigation was followed by a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Criminal Revision No. 307 of 2000 -2- *** The accused was charged under Section 61 (1) (C) of the Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution led evidence and ultimately the trial ended in conviction. His appeal was also dismissed. Arguments heard. At the very outset, without assailing the conviction, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he being the first offender and having already undergone about three months of the substantive sentence, must be extended some leniency. Having examined the impugned judgment, the evidence appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. Both the courts below have returned concurrent findings that the accused had committed the crime. The judgment is shorn of any perversity warranting interference by this Court. As such, the impugned judgment of conviction is maintained. Now coming to the quantum of sentence, it may be observed that the occurrence took place way back in the year 1994 and the accused has already suffered a lot due to the protracted proceedings. He has already undergone about three months of the substantive sentence. No bad antecedents have come on record in order to 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. Consequently, this petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence to that of already undergone by him. However, fine is enhanced to Rs.10,000/- which shall be paid by him within three months from today, failing which this petition would be treated as dismissed. Copy of the judgment be sent to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mansa for compliance. March 22, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge