1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Revision No.118 of 2003. Date of Decision:12.8.2010. _______________________________________________ Raj Mal ….Petitioner. Versus. State of H.P. ….Respondent. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting1? No.. For the petitioner : Mr.A.K.Vashist, Advocate. For Respondent. : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Addl. Advocate General. Dev Darshan Sud, J.(Oral). The petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act as applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh on the allegation that he was found in possession of 19 bottles of country liquor and two bottles of XXX rum black jack, IMFL. But, the evidence does not state as to what was the quantity in these bottles. In these circumstances taking the contents to be 750 ml. per bottles the total liquour seized works out to 16.250 bulk liters. Learned counsel for the petitioner urges that even if this court does not accept the contention on behalf of the Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment?yes. 2 petitioner that he is innocent of the offence, Section 61-A as applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh, provides that in case of 18 bulk litres of liquour is the offence can be compounded. The relevant portion of Section 61-A reads: “61-A. Composition of certain offences-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) of section 61, any offence, whether committed before or after the commencement of the Punjab Excise (Himachal Pradesh) Amendment Act, 2001, relating to the imports, exports, transportation or possession up to 60 litres of Lahan or up to 18 bulk litres of liquor, may either before or after the institution of the prosecution, be compounded by the Judicial Magistrate of the Ist Class, for an amount which shall not be less than one thousand rupees but shall not exceed twenty five thousand rupees.” I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned Additional Advocate General. Looking to the evidence on record, I cannot persuade myself to hold that the possession of the petitioner of country liquor has not been proved. But at the same time, the facts could not be ignored that the petitioner is not a habitual smuggler or that intention was such that he was carrying the liquor, in furtherance of his activities to commit offence of selling illicit liquor etc. In these circumstances, I deem it fit and proper that the petitioner be granted the benefit of Section 61(A) of the Act. A fine of Rs.10,000/- is imposed which shall be deposited before the learned trial Court within a period of twelve weeks from today. It is clarified that in case the fine is 3 not deposited, the petitioner’s sentence of imprisonment shall revive. The petition is accordingly disposed of. (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. August 12, 2010(R)