Crl. Revision No.2373 of 2002 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Revision No.2373 of 2002 Date of Decision: August 16, 2010 Avtar Singh and another .......Petitioners Versus State of Haryana .......Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.Vinod Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Kshitij Sharma, Asstt. Advocate General, Haryana. <><><> JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. 1. The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 16.10.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar (hereinafter referred as “Appellate Court”) whereby judgment and order, dated 8/9.1999, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar (hereinafter referred as “Trial Court”) convicting the petitioners was upheld and the petitioners have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence under Section 61(1)(a) of the Excise Act, 1914 (hereinafter Crl. Revision No.2373 of 2002 -2- referred as “the Act”) and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2. Brief facts of the case, as narrated in paras 2 and 3 of the Appellate Court judgment, are as under: “On 21.3.1993, Madan Lal Assistant Sub Inspector (PW2) along with Head Constable Krishan Kumar (PW4) and Constable Rattan Singh, Bhim Singh, Rawal Singh and Partap Singh was present near the School of village Peerawali, in official jeep bearing No.HNT-3042, which was being driven by Rajinder Constable for patrolling and crime checking. One fitter rehra came from the side of village Peerawali, which was being driven by one of the accused and the driver of that fitter rehra tried to turn back the same on seeing the police party, therefore on getting suspicion the driver of the fitter rehra and the person, who was sitting on the fitting rehra, were apprehended. The driver disclosed his name as Satnam Singh son of Jinda Singh, whereas the other person told his name as Avtar Singh son of Janga Singh residents of Peerawali. On checking the fitter rehra, it was found that there were 25 bags of gur and two rubber tubes containing liquor. Out of each tube, one nip was separated as sample. The residue illicit liquor of both the tubes on measurement was found as 249-1/2 bottles and the same was transferred to five plastic cans of 40 litres each. The nips of samples and the plastic cans containing remaining liquor were sealed with the seal bearing inscription ML and same were taken into possession along with fitter Crl. Revision No.2373 of 2002 -3- rehra, two empty tubes and 25 bags of gur, vide recovery memo Ex.PA. After retaining the specimen impression, the seal was handed over to Krishan Kumar, Head Constable. Ruqqa Exhibit PB was sent to the police station through Rawal Singh, Constable, on the basis of which the first information report Exhibit PB/1 was recorded. Madan Lal, Assistant Sub Inspector carried out the investigation. He prepared rough site plan regarding the place of recovery Exhibit PG and recorded the statements of the witnesses. The case property was depositing with the Moharrir Head Constable in the Police Station. The samples were sent to the Chemical Examiner for the purpose of analysis. After receiving the report of chemical examiner and on completion of other usual acts of investigation, the report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was submitted by the then Station House Officer, Police Station Sadar, Hisar.” 3. The accused-petitioners were charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 61(1)(a) of the Act to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as four witnesses, viz., Head Constable Om Parkash as PW1; ASI Madan Lal, Investigating Officer as PW2; Constable Bishamber Dayal as PW3 and Constable Krishan Kumar as PW4. 5. Statements of the accused-petitioners were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they denied the allegations levelled against them and pleaded their false implication. Crl. Revision No.2373 of 2002 -4- 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioners for a term as noticed in para 1 of this judgment. 7. The sentence of the petitioners was ordered to be suspended by this Court, vide order dated 17.1.2003, and the present revision petition was admitted on 7.3.2005. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners does not dispute the finding of the learned Courts below and confines his submission to the question of quantum of sentence only and has prayed that sentence already awarded by the Trial Court be reduced to the period already undergone. 9. Learned counsel for the State while furnishing custody certificate, which is taken on record, has submitted that no leniency should be shown to the petitioners as the offence stands proved. 10. From the record, it is made out that the FIR in the instant case was registered on 21.3.1993. Thus, the petitioners have suffered a protracted trial for more than 17 years. As per custody certificate produced on record, Petitioner No.1 - Avtar Singh has already undergone sentence for 2 months and 17 days whereas petitioner No.2 – Satnam Singh has already undergone sentence for 3 months and 8 days. They have not mis- used the concession of bail. 11. In view of the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners and in the facts and circumstances and, particularly, the protracted trial of more than 17 years and keeping in view the right of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India for speedy trial, I am of the opinion that ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone and, in addition Crl. Revision No.2373 of 2002 -5- thereto, the sentence of fine is enhanced. 12. Keeping in view the above facts, the substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone by them, but their conviction and sentence stands maintained. However, the sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.20,000/- besides the fine already imposed by the Trial Court. They shall deposit this amount before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 13. In case, the petitioners fail to comply with the direction of depositing the enhanced amount of fine with the concerned Court within the period stipulated above, this petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed. The impugned order of sentence stands modified to the extent indicated above. 14. Accordingly, this petition is partly allowed and the judgment/order of the Appellate Court dated 16.10.2002 and that of the Trial Court dated 8.9.1999 is modified to the extent indicated above. ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) August 16, 2010 JUDGE SRM Note: Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No