Criminal Revision No.750 of 2001. -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Criminal Revision No.750 of 2001. Date of decision:4.9.2008. Dhira ...Petitioner. Versus State of Haryana. ...Respondent. ... Criminal Revision No.774 of 2001. Date of decision:4.9.2008. Boota Ram. ...Petitioner. Versus State of Haryana. ...Respondent. ... Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. C. Puri. ... Present: Mr. P. S. Jammu Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S. S. Goripuria, DAG Haryana. ... Criminal Revision No.750 of 2001. -2- K. C. Puri, J. Judgment. Both the above-mentioned Criminal Revisions have arisen out of same judgment dated 23.4.2001 passed by Shri A.K.Bimal, the then Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa whereby he dismissed the appeal filed against the judgment dated 8.5.1998 delivered by Shri Ram Chander, Special Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa, convicting the petitioners under Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for another two months. The factual matrix comprising the case of prosecution is that on 30.6.1992, HC Shoe Chand along with Constable Jagdish Parshad and Budh Ram was going from village Kheowali towards village Khairekan. After covering a distance of about half a Kilometre from village Kheowali, they saw a jeep coming from the side of village Khairekan. The jeep was going at a high speed and the police party signalled the jeep to stop. The jeep stopped at some distance ahead from the police party. The driver of the jeep and the person, sitting behind him were apprehended. The jeep was found without any plate number and the driver disclosed his name Criminal Revision No.750 of 2001. -3- as Boota Singh whereas the other person told his name as Bhira Singh. A search was conducted and 100 bottles of country made liquor contained in card-board boxes were found. Both the accused could not produce any permit or licence for carrying such a huge quantity of country made liquor. A nip of sample was separated from each of the bottles. The samples as well as residue in each bottle were separately sealed with the seal bearing impression 'SC' and were taken into possession vide memo Exhibit PA. The seal, after use, was handed over to PW Jagdish Parshad. The jeep was also taken into possession vide separate recovery memo. HC Shoe Chand thereafter sent ruqqa Exhibit PB upon which formal FIR, Exhibit PB/1, was registered against the accused. Investigation in the case was conducted and after completion of the same, challan was presented against the accused/petitioners in the Court. Both the accused were charge-sheeted under Section 61 (1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To substantiate its allegations, the prosecution examined PW-1 Shoe Chand, Investigating Officer, PW-2 Makhan Singh, PW-3 Chhabil Dass and PW-4 Jagdish Parshad. Criminal Revision No.750 of 2001. -4- After the close of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded. They denied the prosecution allegations against them and pleaded that they have been falsely implicated in the present case. However, the accused did not adduce any evidence in defence. On the basis of evidence, the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded to prove the charge against the accused/petitioners and they were accordingly convicted and sentenced, as notice above. An appeal was filed by the petitioners against the said judgment dated 8.5.1998 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa vide the impugned judgment. Hence, the present Criminal Revisions. Although in the grounds of revision, the conviction of the petitioners has been challenged on numerous grounds but, during the course of arguments, the counsel for the petitioners has not laid any challenge on the conviction part of the judgment. The Courts below have considered all the pros and cons of the prosecution case in their elaborate judgments and have given cogent reasons for basing conviction of the petitioners. I find no Criminal Revision No.750 of 2001. -5- reason to take a different view. Therefore, the conviction of the petitioners is confirmed. The learned counsel for the petitioners has prayed for reduction of the sentence of the petitioners to the one already undergone by them. I have carefully considered the said submission. The occurrence, in this case, relates to the year 1992. The question that remains for determination is as to what is the sentence which should be imposed on the petitioners. Since 1992, the petitioners have been undergoing the agony of this criminal prosecution. They must have suffered physically, mentally and economically. I am not oblivious of the fact that the petitioners have been denied their fundamental right as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This right of speedy and expeditious trial is one of the most valuable and cherished right of an accused. In these circumstances, judicial compassion play an important role and the petitioners are liable to be compensated for the mental agony which they had suffered on account of protracted trial. For the afore-mentioned reasons, I reduced the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded to both the petitioners to the one already undergone by them. However, the sentence of fine is enhanced to Criminal Revision No.750 of 2001. -6- Rs.20,000/- qua both the petitioners in both the Criminal Revisions. It is, however, clarified that each petitioner shall deposit a fine of Rs.10,000/-( Rs.ten thousands) after adjusting the amount of fine, if any, already paid by them. In default of payment of fine, within three months from today, both the Criminal Revisions shall be deemed to have been dismissed. These Criminal Revisions stand disposed of, in the above terms. A copy of this judgment be sent to the learned trial Court for strict compliance. September 4,2008. ( K. C. Puri ) Jaggi Judge