Criminal Revision No. 2711 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 2711 of 2009 Date of decision: November 19, 2009 Gulzar Singh -Petitioner Versus State of Punjab -Respondent Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajan Gupta Present: Mr. HS Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Shilesh Gupta, DAG, Punjab. Rajan Gupta, J.(Oral) Petitioner Gulzar Singh had been convicted by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala under Section 61(1)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act ( in short the 'Act') vide judgment/order dated 21-7-2006 and was sentenced to undergo RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of payment of fine to further suffer RI for one month. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the judgment of his conviction/sentence, which was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala vide judgment dated 10-7-2009. Feeling aggrieved against the judgments of both the courts below, the petitioner has approached this Court through the instant Criminal Revision. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he is limiting his prayer only to the extent of reduction in the sentence awarded and does not assail the judgment of conviction. Learned State counsel, on the other hand submits that in case conviction of the petitioner is maintained, the Court may reduce the sentence as deemed appropriate in the circumstances of the case. Criminal Revision No. 2711 of 2009 2 I have heard learned counsel for both the sides. Briefly, the prosecution case runs thus: On 14-11-2001, HC Baljit Singh along with other police officials was present at Bus Stand Devigarh in connection with patrol duty, where he received a secret information that Gulzar Singh petitioner used to distill illicit liquor and if raid is conducted, he would be apprehended with heavy quantity of illicit liquor. On the basis of the said information, raid was conducted and the petitioner was found running working still in his house. A drumi containing 30 Kgs of lahan was found. Necessary formalities were completed at the spot. After completion of investigation and on receipt of report of chemical examiner ( Exhiibit PX), he was sent up to face trial. Finding a prima facie case under Section 61(1)(c) of the Act, charge sheet was framed against the accused petitioner, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To substantiate its case against the accused/petitioner, the prosecution examined as many as 5 witnesses besides placing on record report of chemical examiner ( Exhibit PX) and certain other documents. The statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein the incriminating evidence available on record was put to him. He refuted the incriminating circumstances and pleaded false implication. He examined one witness in his defence. On the basis of the evidence on record, the learned trial court held the petitioner guilty of the charge framed against him and sentenced him as already indicated above. The appeal filed against the said judgment was also dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad. Criminal Revision No. 2711 of 2009 3 On a perusal of the judgments of both the courts below, I am of the considered view that the trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record while holding the petitioner guilty of the charge framed against him. The appellate court has also dismissed the appeal. There is no infirmity or illegality in the findings given by both the courts below. The conviction of the petitioner is, thus, affirmed. Even counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments, has not assailed the judgments of conviction. He has however, pleaded for reduction in the quantum of sentence on the ground that the petitioner is first offender, he is a poor man and has already faced the agony of protracted trial since 2001. Learned State counsel has placed on record reply by way of affidavit of Superintendent, Central Jail Patiala, according to which the appellant has undergone 5 months and 25 days as on 13.11.2009. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence awarded to the petitioner by the trial court is reduced to RI for six months. However, the amount of fine is enhanced to Rs.10,000/-. The amount of fine shall be deposited with the trial court within one month of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, failing which the petitioner shall undergo RI for one month. Except with modification in the quantum of sentence, as indicated herein above, the revision petition is dismissed. [Rajan Gupta] Judge November 19, 2009. 'ask'