IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 2166 of 2004 Date of decision: February 24, 2010 Mukesh Kumar .. Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Ram Bilas Gupta, Advocate Amicus Curiae with Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. C.S. Brar, DAG, Punjab for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J Initially three accused namely Mukhtiar Singh, Mukesh Kumar and Ashok Kumar were tried convicted and sentenced vide judgment dated 8.5.2001 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur under Section 61 (1) (a) of the Act (herein referred as 'the Act') and two appeals i.e. one by Mukhtiar Singh and Mukesh Kumar and another by Ashok Kumar were preferred which were dismissed vide judgment dated 16.10.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur. It would also be pertinent to mention here that the petitioners had not assailed the judgment passed by the trial court before the First Appellate Court, but had only urged for taking a lenient view on the quantum of sentence. However, keeping in view the heavy quantity of the contraband in their possession without any licence or permit, the Appellate Court turned down the request and dismissed the appeals. Brief facts of the case are that on 4.8.1997, ASI Prem Singh along with other police officials held a picket in the area of Adda (Bus stop) Criminal Revision No. 2166 of 2004 -2- Mandiala. In the meantime, the petitioner along with Ashok Kumar and Mukhtiar Singh arrived there in a Matador bearing registration No.DL-I-CD 1276. The Matador was stopped by the Investigating Officer and searched where from four boxes of liquor make “Winner Whisky” containing 12 bottles each, four boxes of liquor make “Old Tavern” containing 12 bottles each were recovered from underneath the seat cover on which the petitioner was sitting. Ten boxes of liquor make “Old Tavern” containing 12 bottles each were recovered from the dicky of the said Matador. Samples were drawn from all the bottles and the bottles as well as the samples were sealed with the seal by the Investigating Officer. Ruqa was sent to the police station, on the basis of which case was registered. The liquor was got tested from the Forensic Science Laboratory and on completion of the investigation accused were challaned. They were charged under Section 61 (1) (a) of the Act, to which they pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined ASI Mohan Lal (PW1), HC Hakumat Rai (PW2), HC Tarsem Singh (PW3), C. Jaspal Singh (PW4) and ASI Prem Singh (PW5). When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances and pleaded their false implication in the case. In defence, they examined Arjan Khanna (DW1). The trial ended in conviction. Their appeals were also dismissed. Arguments heard. Now while scrutinizing the impugned judgment in this petition filed by Mukesh Kumar, it is observed that both the courts below have Criminal Revision No. 2166 of 2004 -3- given concurrent findings of fact that the accused when apprehended were found in possession of 18 boxes of illicit liquor for which they failed to show any permit or licence. No such illegality much less irregularity has been pointed out in the conduct of the trial or appreciation of evidence, so as to warrant interference by this Court. The evidence appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. There is nothing to show that both the courts below left any point un-discussed. The accused did not assail the judgment of conviction even before the First Appellate Court. Resultantly, finding no merit in the petition the same is dismissed. February 24, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge