CRR No. 1163 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR No. 1163 of 2011 Date of decision: 26.5.2011 Jaspal Singh @ Sat Parkash ........ Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ........ Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JORA SINGH Present: Mr. Gopal Singh Nahel, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Rajinder Mathur, AAG, Punjab. JORA SINGH, J. Jaspal Singh @ Sat Parkash, preferred this revision to challenge the judgment dated 10.5.2011, rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, in Criminal Appeal No. 124 of 3.3.2008. By the said judgment, appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.2.2008, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur, in case FIR No. 225 dated 14.6.2002, under Section 61 (1) (c) of the Punjab Excise Act, Police Station Kotwali, Sangrur, was dismissed. Vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.2.2008, petitioner was convicted under Section 61 (1) (c) of the Punjab Excise Act and was sentenced to undergo rigorous CRR No. 1163 of 2011 -2- imprisonment for a period of 1 year and to pay a fine for ` 5000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 14.6.2002, police party headed by ASI Anokh Singh, on receipt of secret information had sent ruqa to the police station on the basis of which formal FIR was recorded. Raid was conducted and the petitioner-accused was found distilling illicit liquor by means of working still. After completion of investigation, challan was presented in Court. Accused was charge-sheeted under Section 61 (1) (c) of the Punjab Excise Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined 6 witnesses namely PW-1 ASI Gulab Singh, PW-2 ASI Anokh Singh, PW- 3 HC Avtar Singh, PW-4 Constable Ramesh Kumar, PW-5 MHC Nirmal Singh and PW-6 Surinder Pal Pahuja. After close of the prosecution evidence, statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. Accused denied all the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded to be innocent and ultimately, petitioner-accused was convicted and sentenced as stated aforesaid. While issuing notice of motion, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that impugned judgment is not challenged on the point of conviction. Only request was to release the petitioner on probation. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that petitioner is 48 years old. He is the first offender and has two children to support. Petitioner is in custody w.e.f. 10.5.2011. Requested to release the CRR No. 1163 of 2011 -3- petitioner on probation. Learned State counsel has produced the custody certificate of the petitioner and the same is ordered to be taken on record. According to the custody certificate, petitioner is in custody w.e.f. 10.5.2011. Learned State counsel further state that keeping in view the antecedents of the petitioner revision petition be disposed of. Petitioner is 48 years old and has to support two children. He is the first offender and belongs to a poor family. He is in custody w.e.f. 10.5.2011. In 2007 (1) RCR (Criminal) 396, “Pakhar Singh Vs. State of Punjab”, accused was convicted under Section 61 (1) (c) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914, and directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 year and to pay a fine of ` 5000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. He was facing trial for the last seven years and was 52 years old. Ultimately, while disposing of the revision petition, accused was ordered to be released on probation. In the present case also, petitioner is the first offender and belongs to a poor family. He is 48 years old and is facing trial for the last about 8 years and is in custody w.e.f 10.5.2011. Keeping in view the nature of offence and antecedents of the petitioner, at least one chance should be given to the petitioner to improve himself, when there is minimum sentence of one year prescribed under the Excise Act, then no ground to deny the relief of probation. In view of all discussed above, instant revision petition is partly allowed but impugned judgment is upheld on the point of CRR No. 1163 of 2011 -4- conviction. Petitioner is ordered to be released on probation on furnishing probation bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur, for a period of one year to keep peace and to be of good behaviour, with direction to undergo imprisonment in case of breach of condition of probation bonds. Petition partly allowed. May 26, 2011 ( JORA SINGH ) rishu JUDGE